COLOR AND PHILOSOPHY
今天的讨论是研究哲学的一个很好的例子。在我看来。经典哲学辩论是考察“客观/主观”的唯一途径。色彩感知的本质。科学在这方面并没有真正的帮助;理性的辩论，以宽容和考虑相反的立场，是探索这一问题的唯一途径。我曾断言神经科学和哲学是不相容的，这让我(对我的智力)产生了怀疑，我认为这个颜色展览给了我一些支持:尽管人们可以仔细而肯定地描述颜色知觉的生理活动，但这些数据在客观/主观的情况下毫无用处。知觉的讨论。科学只能描述材料(以各种令人兴奋的戏剧性的形式);哲学是探索颜色知觉的意识方面的唯一途径，这是我们真正想知道的。
In a similar way, I have to object to John?s assertion that ?Different animals have evolved to see colors differently.? He uses the word ?evolved? to magically transform stuff he does not and cannot ?know? into unassailable truths. Like the current use of the word ?genetics.?
想要真正戏剧化地体验环境如何影响和改变颜色(以及所有的视觉)感知，去看看艺术家詹姆斯·特瑞尔(James Turrell)的作品。
还有一件事:对颜色的研究引出了另一个奇妙的哲学问题:什么是现实。例如，如果颜色只是波或粒子对视觉接收器的轰击，那么正在观看的红色物体是否“真的”有颜色，或者它“真的”没有颜色，而颜色只“存在”在视神经上?或者在头脑中(注意，我没有说“大脑”)?现实与存在:好吃好吃。
mirugai

"Man is the measure of all things" an old Greek once said, even the color red. Beyond these manmade measures of uncertainty that only lead to greater uncertainty is a nature of immeasurable truth, the absolute, a light so clear and bright it need no measure at all.
If you haven't seen the light yet, try to measure a river, the answer will set you free!
Free at last,
=

我是一个二元论者，如你所知，MJA(物质和意识)。你所有的教导甚至不是指向“合一”，而是指向“整体”或“整体”，或其他更完整的东西，我甚至不认为存在一个词。所以，你可能不太高兴，但我在你在这个论坛上说的一切中发现了太多的真理，我完全有必要在你的声明中找到我所相信的证据。I could just requote your submission in its entirety, but three wonderful ideas I would like to put on my banner:
“超越……manmade measures of uncertainty"
" ... a nature of immeasurable truth ..."
And, as always "="

我也挥舞着那个旗帜。
Thank you,
=

真理是恶霸吗?是真相还是现实让我们看清?普罗塔哥拉，“古希腊人”，至少根据柏拉图在以他命名的对话中所说，是对主体性的肯定。柏拉图，与大多数诠释者相反，实际上认为他的观点是有道理的，尽管他也认为“古希腊语”中有些东西是倒过来的。关键在于，真理是一种解放，而不是一种义务，正如整个“启蒙”时代所认为的那样，即使在今天，我们仍然是这个时代的参与者。问题是，主体性如何成为我们对世界的认识和经验的解放真理?认知主义是一种欺骗。这是一种欺骗，通过这种欺骗，人文主义者将人类置于一个名义上更严格的环境中，这样我们就可以谈论人类的观点，仿佛它们在某种程度上客观真实。这也是一种欺骗，因为它将体验置于名义上的情境中，但却不是真正意义上的客观情境。这是一种欺骗，也就是说，如果你把它当作一个进步的主张人类价值观的人，或者一个假装揭示客观真相的非人道主义者。
没有该死的“绿色”。在蓝色和绿色之间，有无数种水色，每一种都有严格的定义，甚至被色彩专家和时装设计师命名，所以我们对它们的主观体验不应该有什么根本性的问题。讨论中最令人反感的方面(这是令人反感的)是对科学的伪称，我们坚持认为需要把经验降级为被动地接受“外面是什么”。物质世界和人的意识之间没有“外面”或“里面”。在哲学的所有领域中，有一件事需要澄清:没有任何东西，绝对没有任何东西(在最严格的意义上)是“像”意识的。意识是无与伦比的。因为这些原因会占用更多的空间，更不用说在颜色视觉的问题上，我们每个人都是时间是什么和谁的一种方式，这是如此真实和连接时间的宇宙，时间甚至没有开始，更不用说结束，直到它完成了连接。每个人都不可或缺地真实，没有什么是真实的，直到所有的意义都像其他事物一样真实。关键是，我们会死去，在不同的时间里，死亡是如此的完全不同，以至于它根本没有任何东西的地方，直到那离开的意义成为它的现实。将此与手头的主题联系起来，有一种改变存在意义和经历的每一个术语的行为，在持续的基础上发生在我们身上，如此普遍和突然，以至于没有任何术语来描述它，但它的突然变化的时刻。 We throw away our foundations nanosecond by nanosecond in a way science can only make a mockery or travesty of. We get out of our own way and out of each other's way and so create a whole language of experience and of ways of being that are most critically real and articulated by our being departed them. By getting out of the way, things come into view that would not otherwise be visible. By getting out of the way, we let each other be real there. But our greatest debt is to that absence. Cognitivism ain't got a clue.

Hi Gary,
梦难道不是一种意识“类似”的状态吗?非常早的童年不也是意识吗?难道一些动物不被拴在非常不同的感觉器官上吗?理查德·道金斯(Richard Dawkins)的模因论——你声称不知道它的意思——也“类似”意识。无可匹敌的人吗?条条大路通罗马。除了那些不知道的。
What does this sentence mean?
“因为这个网站可能会占用更多的空间，更不用说容忍颜色视觉的问题，我们每个人都是时间是什么和谁的一种方式，这是如此真实和连接时间的宇宙，时间甚至没有开始，更不用说结束，直到它完成连接。”
That is one heck of sentence for a blogger who considers cognitivism a cheat. We may not be able to apply science to color, but good lord man, it helps to have grammar to parse a thought. 'Too much coffee man - TMCM' is at work here me thinks. There's plenty of room on this blog to clarify this at least.
MJA above and the guest philosopher Jon are right to see subjectivity in the perception of color. MJA, I think, more than any other poster on this blog would agree "that truth is emancipating". But what does this sentence mean?
"问题是，主体性如何成为我们对世界的认识和经验的解放真理"
... TMCM strikes again.
普罗泰戈拉并没有在他的同名对话中谈论颜色，甚至也没有谈到自然世界。顺便问一句，柏拉图在哪里给主体性赋值?他在这里用普罗泰戈拉作陪衬。在柏拉图的对话录中找到柏拉图是很困难的，但我并不把主体性和柏拉图主义联系在一起。
说了这么多——我明白你所说的要点。在我生命中所经历的萨满教之旅中，你的许多文章与我凯鲁西亚人的感性产生了惊人的共鸣。
Note Grue does exist on this site. He aspires to being bleen. I'm looking forward to his rejoinder.

I guess I'm in a bad mood, I have little good to say about this show.
I'm continually disappointed that Ken & John fail to distinguish between metaphysical, sociological, psychological, ethical, linguistic, etc., issues. It's all "philosophy talk" to them. Maybe they think that's necessary for the show to find a wide audience, but it leads to muddled presentations.
This show is nominally on the metaphysics of color, so you'd think they'd begin with an attempt to clarify what "color" is supposed to be. The noun has many different, uh, shades of meaning, but rather than try to separate them and narrow the conversation, they plunge in pell-mell and spend much of the time arguing over what they're "willing to say". That's lexicography, and it seems to be what philosophers fall back on when they're in too much of hurry to mount arguments.
Maybe the problem with this topic is that the most interesting aspects of color are psychological, so K&J must cheat to smuggle it into a show on philosophy. Those questions outside of cognitive psychology can be handled pretty easily with the ecumenical approach: clearly "redness" is a kind of psychological state whose inner logic is valid whether or not humans, or any particular red-idiopath, actually exists, whereas the experience of redness is probably unique to a species (or even individual); and the physical correlate of color, wavelength of electromagnetic radiation, is about as objective as things get.
You wouldn't know it from this post but in daily life I'm actually a very easy-going guy...

Mr. Smith,
I appreciate that a provocative offering is a dangerous opening strategy, but it also best expresses a disinclination to conventional terms. To someone such as myself, having spent my life thinking very much ?outside the box?, your post feels like an invitation into it. I can only hope you make as much of an effort to reach out of it as I am in reaching into it in an effort to get my thoughts across.
Does George plus George equal two Georges? That is, do we know what we mean when we state that 1+1=2? The grip logic has on number is incommensurably different from the mathematician?s. It is more to do with which one is which than how many. But founding our determinations of identity on what something is ?like? has pernicious effects that can only be obviated by pretending they are not there. Consciousness is not a state of being, it is a dynamic of retrenched supposition or imaging continually altering throughout in the face of contrary evidence and reasoning. It is the deed of person unique in the universe of time. But it is peculiarly akin to time itself in that sense that time is just the differing it is, rather than the ?states of affairs? ?philosophers? try to drive it into, like the square peg into the round hole. But what constitutes being ?like? is, in reality, much more to do with contrariety than ?non-contradiction?. We are more alike differing than in being ?like?. The supposed ?likeness? is dehumanizing and unreal, and most certainly unphilosophical.
?Platonism? is the product of eschewing Plato himself in favor of Aristotle (one of the great criminals of philosophy). His actual work is more about people than ?ideas?. Is the author of the Symposium an idealist? Not if, as in Parmenides, the ?third man? is the solution, not the problem (as Aristotle states it). It?s the drama of the differing through which what is contrary to being ?like? actually brings community. A community of unique, nonpareil, beings. The role of reason is not to bring us into other realms supposed to govern this one, but to find that the extremity of rigor is not the completion of the epochal unity of a term of time (or of a linguistic term) but the lost ability to know which one is which save as a determinate indeterminacy which one. That is, in the sense that genuine understanding emerges amongst us only where we know neither one of us is the agent of it. Only contrariety can explain the logic of that. Nothing ?like?. It?s logic, as, if not more rigorous than convention, but that can only be recognized outside the box.
Can a person be real in a sense reached throughout time? It is conceivable that if the first photon to emerge into being is effaced in an event of interference by the last photon of light to scour the universe, that all intervening time is therein erased from ever having been. Is it really so unthinkable that person is a character of the differing of time that has a reach throughout it? That humanity, if not the center of being, is nevertheless central to it? If so, likening it to anything not of that character is caricature and travesty. Take a walk outside the box with me and see what may be seen...

Gary,
By George, I think this is better. I think you are drinking less coffee but still I beseech you to lay off the juice as I take in the odor. Why not clarify the previous sentences before issuing more? Please do that before proceeding. But if you must? read on? but again ? I ask you? answer my questions before writing more of your own. Parse your sentences above and state them in grammatical form ? or at least diagram them as they are.
你为什么不好奇我的话的意思?因为,我呢?我告诉你，好吗?我在你家等你。我吗?我在敲你的盒子。我向你保证，我也能让单词和语法延伸出意义。我吗?我不给你写诗了?这就会驱使一个联觉者把数字从颜色变回普通数字，只是为了让我闭嘴。
?Like? is your term. I used it because you said it ? quotes and all. For all the differing ? aren?t you comparing consciousness to time above? Like in your second paragraph when your say consciousness ?? is peculiarly akin to time itself???
George plus George may or may not equal two Georges ? depending on what George is. Logic plays a huge role in the Maths and is the primary tool of the mathematician. What is so incommensurable here? In binary math 1 + 1 = 10 BTW ? I know that is dumb but it makes me smile. If George is not the intersection of the set of what constitutes a George separated by a plank time from what had previously been the set of what constitutes a George then we are in some deep philosophical poo as my daughter would say. Supposition cannot be retrenched so easily I think? what about you? A plank time is pretty short for a formative retrenchment. Can we at least agree that George is a conscious being before adding him to himself?
You state consciousness has no comparison (except of course for time which I call you out on again ? because ? you are not consistent there at least ? you should agree Gary). How is this nonpareil identity statement so humanizing, so real, and so much more philosophical than comparing consciousness to something else? Humans are not the center of the universe.
I use the term ?like? because you say there is nothing ?like? consciousness. I posit to you again: dreams (where does George go when he sleeps?), childhood (where did George come from?), animal experience (George Steele was a heck of a wrestler ? but I digress), Dawkinsian memetics (look it up ? it?s really cool)?there are more analogs but I think you would refuse them all if you don?t see the union of the sets of what constitutes George moment to moment to be for the most part George.
Human consciousness is nowhere indispensable ? that too is nonsensical to me. You only need to see the dirt ground in the creases in the nails of your neighborhood heroin addict to see that fact. History also says this, but I don?t think you listen to history?s tales from your philosophical perch if I understand you so far.
Plato says many things over the course of his dialogues, his life and philosophy. Primarily he objectifies stuff ? abstract stuff in general. If we can?t agree on that? then we are going to have to take this dialogue by dialogue because he contradicts himself in my view too many times to jump from Protagoras to Parmenides to find fault in ? Aristotle? Wait? wut?
Finally let me say this. Where does brown come from Gary? What is brown? Ouch? it comes from differing. Ack yech barf snort?. I think there may be something to your madness. Let?s find it in color. It?s a great stepping stone to many cool quirks of metaphysic.
I didn?t get to everything here?but neither did you ? sleep I must now ? pardon the grammar I?m channeling Yoda.

~~Formalism? Well, we'll get to that.
'In the beginning was the did.' So translates Babel Fish the famous line from Goethe, 'Im An-fang war die Tat.' But who done it? Is time dead? Is consciousness? Or is it a living, moving target? So why is your first move to kill it and pin it down into a dissecting tray? But if a moving target, whose move is it? I agree that mathematics uses logic constantly, but what I am saying is that this may be ill advised, because the goods logic supplies are damaged at inception. There is a sense, more than a sense, in which time is person. You may see 'like' in this if you like, but hopefully you will let this pass, in time. A complex organism is bound to die. It takes dogmatic positivism to see in this a purpose of survival (parse pur-pose). The meaning of the complexity of the complex organism is not random possibilities of making different kinds of organisms rule the world in some future age, but opportunities of greater complexity ever more articulated the bond to death. The organizing principle of life is not some evolutionary survival design, but a dialectical progression of cell differentiation through which the community of cells as a whole more completely articulate the worth of its being bound to die in the community in contrariety it is, in that each least part of it is in some sense, if you like, the most differentiated, and so the most articulating bond to death. I am not pretending to be a biologist, though I feel more comfortable with science than most philosophers seem to be. I use the image to illustrate the notion of a non-positivist community in which each part is all, not by arrogating its role, but by departing it. There is an opportunity, not to be confused with potential or the possible. It is neither possible nor potential, any more than is love, or consciousness. Between antecedence and consequence, between intention and obligation or necessity, it is anomalous. And yet it is an anomaly pregnant with riches that can only be expressed by the living responsibility of the whole to be recognized the worth to it of the departed, and to the bond of departure. The 'did' of it logic can't fathom.
This is why:
In all the rigorous definitions of 'is' in logic and mathematics there is a lethal absence. The absence is value. From the proposition (I'd appreciate your explanation of the meaning of this term, because it seems murky to me) there is an absence of the character, and the act, of belonging. It is that character in which the subject belongs of the predicate (or is it the other way 'round?) that creates the meaning of both terms. But it is not a dead thing in a tray, it is a dynamic through which each term finds its opportunity of being what it is and means through a responsibility, more like love than fact, of being recognized the worth of the departed.
Consciousness is not a set, it is a living dynamic never ceasing to stir itself, not even in deepest sleep. If you stop all activity with a drug the subject awakens with a sense of lost time.
The remark about drug addiction seems callously Calvinist to me. My fingernails are dirty most of the time, this does not diminish the quality of my being conscious of it. History is a subject we disagree on. 'Memes' (this is a joke, right?) are better left to fashion followers, not philosophers. Fads do not set the scene for life, they merely caricature it. Hegel was wrong if he suggests that history sets a necessary course, but he had a point if he meant that people find opportunity in each other anomalous to the apparently logical progression of events. Feyerabend wrote of an abundance conquered by the kind of criteria you seem to adhere to, but he doesn't actually tell us what that abundance is. I wonder why?
乔治不是一个集合，他是一个机会，时间是能言善辩的，是有价值的。
There can be no analog to the deed of time. Or is time just languishing?
棕色来自哪里?你问这个问题是什么意思?整个色觉问题都很棘手。视觉不是一组特殊的感觉，它是一组不同的感觉，作为一个整体发展的感觉，就像意识一样。这又把我们带回了托盘里的死东西。实证主义/形式主义对任何推断的努力都缺乏动态的价值。如果术语的意义仅仅来自于把推论的严格性推到极端，在这种极端中，一个人的确定性在动态中丧失了，那么一切都会改变，而不仅仅是对这一点颜色的感知。认知主义的问题在于控制实验排除了最后的严格时刻，所以控制，尤其是对结果的控制。逻辑形式也是如此。在保留我们的标准和条件时，最有意义的结果是潜移潜行的变化，就像改变整体的情绪、感觉和情绪一样。 And this even though we might throughout suppose ourselves single-mindedly focused on the expectations of a telling result. Purity of heart is to lose count of what we are and of which one is the deed and character of the terms of belonging. Consciousness is a kind of departure more telling of time than any set theory can comprehend. It is originary. The logician (positivist/formalist) can deny love all he wants, but he cannot be master of his terms without it, or its loss.

I say that the color of red is relative. Red represents different things in different cultures. I would probably say red looks fairly similar to most people. For some people , red is their favorite color , so it looks good and some people don't like it , so its bad. Red might remind a person of a bad or good childhood memory. Red is a satan or gothic color for some people , so the perspective of a color can vary based on culture , preference , memory or identity. Color is definitely in the eye of the beholder. Color would not be objectively real. For example, a blind or color blind person would not experience color. I think color would still exist in a world with not one to see them , but except for a planet where life forms don't have eyes.

Gary,
这让我很难过。没有一条巴别鱼能从碎片中理解你的思想。我是你的读者。我告诉你……我不明白你的意思。我引用一个句子，让你重新表述或解析你的意思。相反，你继续用更多的问题、陈述和奇怪的隐喻(是的，隐喻——你“像”用了一个非常非山谷女孩意义上的隐喻)把我带进了这个圈子。这行不通的。
Goethe is translating logos. If that is where you are going with your take on consciousness - then peace be with you brother. There is a world of critique and adulation at your doorstep.
威廉·杰斐逊·克林顿用“是”这个词的定义来抹黑自己。我要说的是，大多数这样做的思想家都会落到类似的命运。“is”这个词有很多定义。第一个是——存在。乔治。意识是。我明白了(事实上，我认为这是你思想的两个词总结)。第二个是——身份。乔治是乔治。意识是意识。 I get this too. Another definition is 'like'. For example...'Juliet is the sun'. That you profess to dislike this, that makes me sad. The consolation is I am a biological killer of thought. I will pin this in my consolation tray as a metaphor with which to remember this thread.
Brown is discussed in the show @ ~22:30 - check it out. This is germane to what I think you are trying to express here.
Color is not 'like' consciousness in most all respects. I'm not sure where you are going with that except in your use of set theory that you disavow previously if not in the sentence just prior. I quote...
视觉不是一组特殊的感觉，它是一组不同的感觉，作为一个整体发展的感觉，就像意识一样。
当你在一个感官群体中设置一个感觉你怎么不使用集合理论?颜色是如何作为一个整体不同和生长的?现在你说颜色“像”意识?嗯…I think we are slowly but surely losing the nonpareil quality of consciousness with every post.
How is it possible to conceive of dreams as anything but a cognitive experience. I think there is some rigor here that is missing it's final moment. Have you heard of a Wada test? In this procedure certain parts of the brain are subjected to a very short acting barbiturate. Similar to your scenario where an entire brain is deactivated parts of a brain are 'put to sleep'. Guess what? If that part interprets symbols the patient loses there ability to read. If that part controls speech they can't talk. Hmmm... it's almost like consciousness is a set of attributes at least in this case mapped to regions of the brain. Consciousness can indeed be conceptualized as a set of attributes.
Some people choose to clean their nails. Some people don't. Some dispense their choice to neglect in lieu of addiction. This is not a life well lived. That is not Calvinism. That is philosophy talking. The normative type of talk that bears fruit to those who partake. Note the second and the third type of people in this normative argument are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Regardless of the rightness or wrongness here, when I see an addict in disarray on the street I'm not filled with joy at their articulation of time I'm struck by profound sympathy and regret. What's more I look askance at those who don't share this sentiment.
时间是一个真正令人烦恼的问题。没有你的发音概念那么好但也很烦人。如果“哲学谈话”中国伊朗亚洲杯比赛直播能在“时代”上做一个节目，因为它在你的世界观中扮演着非常关键的角色，那么也许我们可以在那个博客上继续这个对话。直到那时……我想我讲完了。

As Descartes so convincingly demonstrated, the one thing a philosopher never doubts is, himself.
我没有权利指望不被误解，你也没有。我们表达了自己的意思，这种怀疑并不是无能，它是一种自由，作为一种理解的机会，这种理解比我们所能表达的更完美，因为我们没有意识到任何被误解的自由机会。哲学家们如此坚决地要消除那种大多数人都有望理解的自由，这是一个奇迹。但是如何量化这种被打破的自由呢?逻辑实证主义(这个名字从来都是贴切的)的大厦中的一个缺口，在多大程度上造成了如此大的差异，以至于所有的赌注都被取消了?科学的工作原理不是知识，而是无知和忽视。对哲学来说，效仿哲学是致命的。正如柏克莱在《分析者》一世界杯赛程2022赛程表欧洲区书中对微积分的猛烈抨击所指出的那样，数学体系由于对无穷小的矛盾使用而遭到破坏。此外，宇宙学提供了令人信服的证据，证明不存在真正的无限，而量子，或无论它现在被称为什么，至少给我们提供了同样有力的证据，证明不存在真正的无穷小。但是整个系统是对疏忽的辩护。 The very thing that is meant to be understood is measured by conventional formsreduced to so small a variance as to be 'negligible'. But what is neglected? What gets neglected but the very thing we claim to seek to understand? It's like throwing away the baby and keeping the bathwater. Similarly, there is an insuperable void between fact and inference. Two facts cannot be said to be in the same sense until all time is understood comprehensively. Inference is only possible assured that 'is' always means the same thing throughout. But this is impossible. The most effective way to change a mind is to get it to convince itself it is unchanging, or that its inferences consist of an invariant meaning of 'is'. By the way, this is the theme of Plato's Laws. But neglecting the variance to 'is' loses the sense of the proposition. A setting is not a set. It seems deliberately obtuse to me to suppose so. There is no truth, whatever validity there may be in the purely formal sense, to set theory. This is because what is neglected in it is that the most telling term of any set is deliberately omitted. That omission is a crime against truth. Just how much difference does it take to get us to recognize the most telling term (the 'third man')? Where minds change language explodes with meaning. Where meaning never changes there is no mind. The setting of mind is not a brain in a vat. It is a person continually confronted with reason to doubt holistically. It feels like dying, 'like' in that there is no enduring it is. But any enduring term is lessened the holistic character of life and experience. We are bound to die but convicted in enduring. Our languages reflect this as a persistent dogma, though the project of philosophy is to break its grip on us (or would be if it were not in the hands of dogmatists). Only where that conviction, if only of a moment, can be broken long enough to permit that holistic growth in the meaning of all and every term of it, of that conviction, does language emerge amongst us. Mind is anomaly. But anomaly, alone, is just nothing, and can be safely neglected. But if that anomaly each of us is is auspicious of the moment of the other coming to that holistic critique of conviction, then language grows and matures more meaningfully than logical or epistemic analysis can ever reveal even to itself. An anomalous act is made the differing of all time in the response recognized itself emancipated by it. The least term of time is all the differing it is.
The cognitivist method of using brain damage to map the mind is rationally flawed. Hitting the tendon below the kneecap makes the leg jerk. This does not mean that the motivating consciousness of walking is centered there.
Ken Starr was supposed to be investigating Whitewater but found nothing there he could use against Clinton, so he fabricated the crime of philandering. It was a glaring case of prosecutorial misconduct. The fact that the Knave of Hearts likes his tarts does not prove him guilty of stealing them. This is what Clinton was, clumsily, asserting. But if ?being talk? is now subject to censure philosophy has a lot of explaining to do that it is dogmatically opposed to doing, or even permitting. Has philosophy really come to censorship?!!!!

Gary,
Philosophers are not bent on eliminating esoteric language... but I am. I dare say I am the only person on this planet to have attempted to come to terms with your posts above despite the esoteric language. For example ...coming to terms with this sentence is not fun for a reader supposedly present to discuss color ontology.
“因为这个网站可能会占用更多的空间，更不用说容忍颜色视觉的问题，我们每个人都是时间是什么和谁的一种方式，这是如此真实和连接时间的宇宙，时间甚至没有开始，更不用说结束，直到它完成连接。”
我特别要求你澄清这一点——两次……你的读者。作为作家和哲学家的你反而声称你的措辞是(如果我敢转述的话)“一种承诺谅解的自由。”绝对主义(原文如此)——否定对智慧的热爱或共享。你提供的不是条款，而是更深奥的东西。祝你好运，加里。在完整的发音之前，生命只有那么多。
让我搞清楚……你可以通过麻醉整个大脑来说明时间和思想，但从理性上讲，用部分大脑来说明意识的多样性是有缺陷的。嗯…这是不公平的，世界反兴奋剂机构的大脑损伤测试也是不公平的。
Hitting the tendon below the kneecap does not make the leg jerk if you have lesions on your cerebral cortex... which happens to be where the motivating consciousness of walking and movement is. Thanks for bringing that up.
Bill Clinton failed to assert Gore over Bush which is and was clumsy. No one is censuring your "being talk" or censoring it for that matter. I'm pretty sure no one else on the planet understands these posts well enough to do either. I'm in your box now Gary.
布朗加里……查一下。朱利安·巴伯-你会很高兴，并发现很多与你的思想、时间和是的颜色的概念产生共鸣。如果我完全理解你的话——这个人是你的物理学家，也是这个网站目前的客座哲学家。
I say again godspeed Gary. I'm not going to read your books, but I will read your posts on this site at least. Hopefully we will come to terms at some point.

The following is probably too long in coming, and may be deemed mostly off topic, so take it for what it's worth.
What does agreement teach us? Is it really useful to be so facile in our forms and terms that we have a right to be understood as we think we mean what we say? What if it is misunderstanding that teaches us? What if it is mis-perception that develops perception? Are you familiar with the Berkeley piece (The Analyst)? The point of the calculus is to reduce change to the negligible term. But if that term is precisely the phenomenon we wish to understand, or at least recognize as being there at all, it's a fraud. It's the sort of fraudulence that saturates conventional thinking. But my dilemma is that convention is befogging. It is encompassing and easily dissipates critique as idiosyncrasy. The fraudulence of the calculus is that the neglected term (the infinitesimal) cannot be discerned between its being complementary or contradictory to its assumed reduction (even a crude attempt to draw the infinitesimal will show this). If convention is similar in this, our coming to terms, achieving a nominal disparity of meaning between us, is a misfortune, for we cease to learn from each other. But if there is a contrariety to conventional terms which that convention cannot distinguish between it, between us, which is contradicting and which complementing it, then there is meaning we are sharing in it that the world cannot penetrate. Now that meaning, certainly not nominal, is nevertheless anomalous to what either of us bring to it. But if there is anything we learn from it or that develops from it that achieves, if only between us, a successful critique of the fraud convention is in its neglect of it, then it may be that the idiolect implied is more meaningful than the more facile terms the world offers us.
我试着按照你的指示往上看，但一无所获。我知道棕色是一种特殊的颜色，因为它是所有质数的混合物，可能会在光线和色素的混合物之间产生有趣的分歧，它们在某种意义上表现相反(光线中的质数混合成白色，而色素中的质数混合成黑色)。但是这个问题被混淆了，比如说，红色的东西和它是红色的。我认为我们的色觉不太可能是没有先例的。但这并不意味着我们看到红色是被动的体验。生物学家早该认识到在发育过程中一定程度的积极参与。这并不是说我们选择看到红色，所以有能力看到红色，而是有一种与萎缩相反的早期特征的积极进步。我们用我们自己的方式来使用它，但并不一定达到它可能向我们展示的效果。红色的可以从其他质数推断出来。我相信眼镜虽然能阻止我们看到红色，但不会阻止我们做出推断。 The fact is, seeing red is an important faculty for creatures that eat fruit or that make a great fuss about the general health of their mates. But perception is not a straightforward sensation. I have a ?floater? which I cannot see most of the time. Where does it go? It is obviously there, but the mind erases it. I recently came upon what I thought to be a tube, hiding behind some bushes ( I won't get into what I was doing there), but something directed me to look again, and pop! it suddenly became a flat strip some yards long, with a bulge along one edge that produced the highlight my eye (mind?) at first experienced as the roundness of a tube (it was a discarded garden edger). But the change in perception, very real, did not occur in a little piece of experience, but of the entire length of the object all at once. I have heard a story of a woman who had sight returned to her other eye, but it was weeks before she could see in three dimensions, and when she did it was all of a sudden. She described a sensation of near objects jumping up at her. This cannot happen in the eye, and must be in the mind, unless there is something going on in the optic nerve I've never heard of. But the suddenness of it implies, in the strict sense, that there is an activity presaging it that is quite precise in its deliberations, but with a precision that effectively eludes the pitfall of the difference between seeing double and double vision, or the red thing and its being red. Is there something of greater precision to consciousness than to our debates about its existence? And on this I'm afraid I find your gotcha! remark dismaying.
How to critique convention without critiquing anyone convinced of it, or being distracted by the finer points of that conviction? Or by assertions of it claiming to be the proper criteria of such talk? If the unintended term is how we learn, systems designed for the neglect of it reveal the hidden precision presaging that learning in the alterations in the quality of that conviction, not in its retrenchment. But if convention and consensus is a kind of conviction in the justice of that neglect, critiquing the world of it gets distracted by the difference between the character, or characterology, of a world altering in that conviction and of the individuals engaged in that critique. I hope to alter the capacity of the world to so convict us, without accusing any one in it of it. But this can't be done little by little in individual discussions. It only occurs wholesale, like any transformation of our powers of perception. But this means presenting it in a way that demands far more of an attention span than the world seems currently to encourage in us. My serious work, and I concede that my posts here struggle for words to sum it up, entail extensive and rather delicate lines of reasoning in which inferences emerge that without that context seem farfetched. But if conventional wisdom is wrong in supposing that continuity and consistency is rigor and agreement, or resemblance is formative of your precious categories, then it is changes in the character of this supposition that reveal it, not the output of its explicit reasoning. A notion such as this has a certain evolution as it waxes and wanes in personal conviction. We may insist that we do not know why this conviction should alter so, as some demand that emotions are anomalous to reason. But this supposition just sets up an edifice that gets in the way of learning.
What's it worth to sweep aside that edifice? This is not a matter of me convincing you of anything, or getting you to read anything. The reading suggestion I made earlier was merely a development of my enquiry as to whether I could offer my own work for your ?summer reading list,? now a moot question. But my problem is that editors think like you. You seem a fair enough minded guy, and maybe even open-minded enough to appreciate the complexity of my thought, even if you never come to quite agree with it. But editors are very much embedded in an edifice of conventional thinking which supports their career, and which they feel obligated to, and are pressed to make rapid decisions about texts they receive, and so base their decision on the material accompanying submissions and never read the text unless that accompanying material conforms. It's the world I want to reach, not individuals. I'm willing to take on any criticism of my thought so long as this is done in the context of the whole text, but not in a discussion about why it was never read at all. Every individual has a right to his or her own opinion and reasoning, but the world has no right to support convictions that can only then be brought into the light of day if they get past individuals exquisitely trained in (indoctrinated into?) those convictions. There is plenty of room for discussions of the finer points of ideas, but the effort to introduce a complete alternative to conventional terms and forms needs a way to make an end-run around these, which only then can be brought into a more customary style of discussion. Short of that discussion is myopic. Flatlandish.
启蒙运动的超验心态在今天已经不可信了，取而代之的是一种时代性，我认为，我们从这种时代性中衍生出现代性的概念。一个被认为依赖于“其他”和“其他”的系统被“此时此地”所取代。但是它的方法是没有区别的。的确，其他方面和其他方面对此时此地来说都是不可靠的标准，但如果我们把自己埋没在潮流中，而看不到我们偏见的变化，那也是一种疏忽。哲学的任务不是建立一个假定知识的大厦，而是认识到这种假定随着时间的推移而发生的变化，从而使我们对此时此地或其他地方的偏见减少。知识两者之一，智慧两者都不是。世界也有情绪，就像每个人一样。如果我们认为它们与事实不符，我们就把自己关在了学习之外。但这种学习是对“无意”这个词的一种回应，在固定中要么是此时此地，要么是其他地方。但认识到这个意想不到的术语有助于我们认识到时间的情绪和模式的好处。 It is a dialectic, but not in the sense of a clash of opposites, but as a contrariety in which opposition is complete neither in real nor in rational terms. And if that contrariety is indeterminate between its being contradictory or complementary to either the current or transcendental mode of thinking our difficulties in understanding each other, as the unintended term, enjoins us in a drama emancipating time from both. Agreement is not the goal, nor is an adversarial contest. The missing term is time. This because the completest time is its departure. Change. There is no term that can hold it before us for examination. But reasoning relies upon that possessed term. And yet, we can reason through the changes in our certitude of that term and so learn from the unintended in it, as reason loses its possessiveness of it and of the presumptive right to be understood. The moods of time free us from the presumed unity of language and yet dramatically engage us as partners and participants in that emancipation. Time is the most urgent and most unendurable term. The world, conventional wisdom, has no justice in its offer of our understanding each other, in the rules or lexical storehouse of that offer, nor of our facile ability to know it. What we share of time is neither as alone as transcendence or naturalism would define it, nor as united as the world would. But what is neither one thing nor the other can have a meaning every bit as rigorous as transcendental, natural, or worldly reason would determine only one thing or the other. Contrariety in this sense is the nexus of time, and of human community. But things like emotion and fashion, personal perspective and intimate idiolect, are not justly neglected, or taken only in some objectifying mode, if we mean to learn.

I read some information this morning which was interesting but not surprising to me. It addressed the pointlessness of metaphysics. My brother once described metaphysics as 'a wild ass guess'. Yep. You read it here.