|
|
wait...aik....wait
clue : green as in my and yours i hope - is at the centre of the visible light spectrum..so what does it indicate?c'mon u know but i nak tidoq dah ...we shall go to sleep then. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by mbhcsf at 29-1-2009 01:27 AM 
wait...aik....wait
clue : green as in my and yours i hope - is at the centre of the visible light spectrum..so what does it indicate?c'mon u know but i nak tidoq dah ...we shall go to sleep then.
it indicates al-arqam? really..no idea  just coincidence kot |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply #122 saden's post
ya rabbi astaghfirullah....no no..dear no nono....
well ...green is at the centre, kan? then what does it mean ?
my physic teacher said ...it indicates balance...
but now
i need to sleep.....
bye then Moulder.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
salam
so i am thinking ...x - ray has no colour then...hmm...
but let say if a person perceiving green as i dunno magenta
but 98% of the population will be able to see "green" as the green...basically a consensus
would that philosophical question will be rendered invalid ?
let say everyine would say yeah your green is same as mine too...then?
what would we called those lots who were unable to perceive as we do?
we could at least conclude , could we that most say 90% of the population will see green as green a colour /an attribute but those belong to the 10% group ...are ...normal?
abnormal...or what
u see these things are quite pertinent in clinical - based discipline.
that's why i am a bit boggled. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
however,
perception is best tested by using those ? Rorschach diagram or optical illusion...
but you are right though they tend to manipulate few elements like lines and shapes etc kan to exert the optical illusion
but ishihara plates are good at testing colours..via this test we'll be able to recognise that not all human population are seeing colours/ perceiving colours the way we do...
again , the question of is my green concur with yours...hmm? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wsalam n welcome back!
Originally posted by mbhcsf at 29-1-2009 10:34 PM
so i am thinking ...x - ray has no colour then...hmm...
that's the inadequacy of our definition of what 'color' is. i guess if our eyes can see xrays or radio waves, it would appear as some color; but a color that we can never imagine.
but let say if a person perceiving green as i dunno magenta
but 98% of the population will be able to see "green" as the green...basically a consensus
that consensus is a lie because no one will ever know what another person perceives in terms of color.
as an exercise, ask anyone to describe to you the color green as she sees it. the best she can do is give examples of things that are green (grass, leaves, bendera saudi, jubah arqam...). if she starts mentioning wavelengths, that is just what the light is, not what she sees it as. so, color is not describable but it is something u experience.
ok, let's do a test... a small boy sees green as blue (penat nak taip magenta hehehe) and sees blue as green. he doesn't know it and we don't know it. so dia pun baru nak kenal warna..kita pun ajar dia hijau tu macam rumput, daun etc... dia pun cakap 'ooo' walaupun dia nampak biru. so apa yg berlaku ialah otak dia rename biru as hijau. bila kita tanya rumput kaler apa, dia pun sebut hijau walaupun dia nampak biru. kita nak test lagi, kita tanya benda yg dia tak pernah nampak...tu baju abang askar tu kaler apa? dia pun sebut hijau juga walaupun hakikatnya dia nampak biru.
kendian kita ajar dia warna biru pulak. oleh kerana color is not describable, kita pun limited to giving examples juga. kita pun kata biru tu macam langit. walaupun dia nampak hijau sebenarnya, oleh kerana he doesn't know any better, dia pun akur ajelah...otak dia namakan warna hijau yg dia nampak tu sebagai biru. so kita pun test...lautan warna apa? otak dia nampak ijau, tapi dia sebut biru as we hoped and expect. tanya lagi... tu bendera BN warna apa? dia pun kata biru juga walaupun hakikatnya dia nampak hijau. so kita pun happy..anak aku normal.
so apa kita boleh conclude? boleh ke kita detect problem dia? everything in his mind is internally consistent walaupun different than us. boleh detect? no way..
would that philosophical question will be rendered invalid ?
let say everyine would say yeah your green is same as mine too...then?
what would we called those lots who were unable to perceive as we do?
we could at least conclude , could we that most say 90% of thepopulation will see green as green a colour /an attribute but thosebelong to the 10% group ...are ...normal?
abnormal...or what
answered above
u see these things are quite pertinent in clinical - based discipline.
that's why i am a bit boggled.
the problem is it's not clinical, it's something the soul experiences.
problem yg sama juga kita encounter with the issue of taste. bayangkan org tu rasa pahit as manis and manis as pahit. walaupun begitu, body dia tetap beri reaction yang kita expect with the real pahit or manis. how could u test? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply #86 mbhcsf's post
|
Hitam tak perlukan putih untuk wujud, Tapi hitam perlukan ruang untuk wujud. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jap jap dear..wow ...what a synthesis
I would want to ask just a few question based on the above postings:
a) a person could hear ( nothing wrong with his / her auditory function ) the sound of the rattling bunch of keys but ...jeng jeng he did not recognize that is the sound from an object called the key.
b) a person could be having a problem of identifying the face ...he does not recognize the person as someone that is possibly close to him...
rasanya wujud tak benda ni?
sajer jer tanya you because your response to these questions will dictate something...wuaaaaa....how important , kan? 
[ Last edited by mbhcsf at 30-1-2009 06:31 PM ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply #128 mbhcsf's post
wujud!  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply #127 St.Yeepi's post
|
but you still ned contrast , though, that's how the dot per inch works...by manipulating contrasting colours / pigmentation... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
well a single answer?
Originally posted by saden at 30-1-2009 02:36 PM
wujud!
well...i have reread your article above, wow the further the idea being explored , some of the words would also simplified- hijau - tu ijau ..then voila to politics!!!anak lihat hijau yer ...hmm..pandai hang nooo [ i like TDM]
anyway yes good response [ a kind of coerced - typed response / leading response ni, do not you think?]
okay now Mulder eer i mean Fox, we could move to the next level which requires some appraisal of your thoughts....
so , based on the article you' d say that it is impossible to recognise someone as having "misperception" of stimuli , let say in this case - it is in the form of colour and green being the target colour then. But then , you later agreed with me that there is a condition or rather a disorder by the term ________ agnosia that hampers the ability of aperson to "recognise thus identify " some objects / entities/ attributes...so
i guess , darling we both agreed that misperception does happen. so back to my very first posting which stated that
my green will be the same as yours if and only if...so and so so tu lah aaah? kan kan tu betul lah in a way kan? kan kan....
---hehehehe....
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
next one - yep quite an interesting topic you have brought somewhere in between our posts lah kan tang [ ni Kedah naaa] those EM wave would plausibly exhibit certain form of "colours" that are invisible to human eyes...ambil cth malaikat etc etc tu lah semua kan...hmm
but how about infra red? YOU CAN'T SEE IT but why it's called an infr { implying sub?} red?
or then this is basically beaed on biology - if there is pigmentation present in a particular animate entity , which actually absord the target lights of specific wavelength...then how else would a person say - hey i saw the leaves in the shades of magenta ( nak buat macam mana suka type ni) not green...hmmm oh jap jap the leaves are on the trees in Malaysia [ bukan temperate zoneso no autumn yer...] because you would know that there is a specific pigment thAt responsible in giving that specific animate entity, so when a person say leaves are purple .then....
jeng jeng ...would that "philosophical question still apply?"
there is no right or wrong coz it's relative...kot kot mata org tu yg salah or the brain misperceive or the leaves mmg purple, kan?
[ Last edited by mbhcsf at 30-1-2009 06:33 PM ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
well me? having fun? yeah ...having fun , still...
okay, we still hooked on this philosophical - oh yer ? - and not- so - really- discussion ,
tapi apa yg our soul sees from the info presented by the brain (in the case of color and taste), only our own soul knows but it does not know how to describe in words.
>>>> well a human ( i said human ) because when you specify an entity especially when it is a bit you know metaphysical yg ALLAH letak hijab kat kita dari you know dig up more then it 'll become difficult.
Okay a human cannot and he surely unable to describe what an attribute is like , say back to your example hijau is being compared to / associated with the trees...leaves etc etc semantically our brain could categorize an attribute that way. Okay, so we cannot describe hijau - which is an attribute like the way we describe, say a heart , like the heart consists of 4 main chambers namely the so and so lah..i got what you mean . But then analogically a doctor could say a heart is like a muscle pump. haaa ...jeng jeng jennnnnnng ( hmm use different intensity level ni ..) ....he is using relative comparison to paint a picture to a patient on what a heart is, its function etc etc so that patient will somehow get the information that he really able to make sense of /digest instead of using those jargon that he is unable to comprehend.
i could say that a human can describe what is green , salty or even masam masam manis , the taste of apple and cheese, haagen dasz cookis and cream, kuih bakaq, salty, tawaq , manis etc etc by just using comparison relative comparison .
In a way you could PROBE what a person really sees by just simply asking him to indicate his answer by any means.
If we dictate or determine how the answer is going to be like then it'll sound too rigid actually.
so in short , if a cute looking big blue or green eyed - little boy wink wink came to you and say dear daddy a green is like ...see ( he is showing /pointing to you the gRASS or the hoppers on the grass ) then we will know that his green is like probably ( 95% , 5 % due to chance lah naa statistik kena kira jugak ) like yours too. so the strange little boy has the same perception of green but he just could not describe green as ;" the green light has the wavelength of so and so nanometre and ... " like the way a doctor describes a noun / an entity like the cardia...tu i concur with you but tang kita tak setuju ialah bentuk jawapan kot ...hheheheh i redefined your perspective ker ? but when he pointed a little gooey goeey millipede then you should be screaming ...well it is may be because the milipede could be a centipede ( hahaahaah the English labelled the - how many legs an animal/ annelids? has by using length dimension, you noticed that ? wakakaka) or far more importantly when you are not too bothered about the centi vs millipede and still keep on your cool , you would be thinking is the child having problem with his eyes or colour concepts? hmmm.....then you off ..sebab yer lah kan milipede tu gooey geliiii....
ni dah masuk bab diri pulak ni... diri tu ada 4 komponen; roh, akal, nafsu, hati.. masalah kita tak boleh diukur secara saintifik pasal duduk kat interface antara akal dgn roh.
cara or when you discussing methodology , then i would say ALLAH will be the ONe who knows how to measure things dear...it has written in Surah Al - A'la
second verse.
i think i have answered yours.....
but then
Mulder
could we derive a rule...perhaps we called it semantic rules...like
kalau entity / noun you could describe them in words
kalau an attribute / adjective type - you can't ...
[ Last edited by mbhcsf at 1-2-2009 12:10 AM ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ho salam lupa pulak wish..and how is your weekend? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tak dapat lah dinafikan memang sukar nak describe warna secara tepat , selalunya guna comparison aje lah kan yang paling senang . Hijau , ye la kan banyak range hijau ni, hijau muda still muda macam mana tu kan , tersangat muda , remaja , baru baligh , masih baby ?  Kalau yang guna kekdah scientific terlampau dalam usaha nak explain warna hijau , kang jadik macam cakap ngan tembok pulak kan , tak sape paham melainkan yang se wave-length otak aje yang akan faham pun
tapi adakah warna hitam susah gitu jugak untuk kita nak describe ? Mana ada hitam muda atau hitam tua kan , kalau tak berapa hitam kita akan gelarkan kelabu aje kan
[ Last edited by blastoff at 31-1-2009 11:06 PM ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by mbhcsf at 31-1-2009 06:51 PM
okay, we still hooked on this philosophical - oh yer ? - and not- so - really- discussion ,
[quote]
tapiapa yg our soul sees from the info presented by the brain (in the caseof color and taste), only our own soul knows but it does not know howto describe in words.
>>>> well ahuman ( i said human ) because when you specify an entity especiallywhen it is a bit you know metaphysical yg ALLAH letak hijab katkita dari you know dig up more then it 'll become difficult.[/quote]
i have always been referring to human i'm not talking about malaikat or jin at all..
Okay a human cannot and he surely unable to describe what an attributeis like , say back to your example hijau is being compared to /associated with the trees...leaves etc etc semantically our braincould categorize an attribute that way. Okay, so we cannot describehijau - which is an attribute like the way we describe, say a heart ,like the heart consists of 4 main chambers namely the so and so lah..igot what you mean . But then analogically a doctor could say a heartis like a muscle pump. haaa ...jeng jeng jennnnnnng ( hmm use differentintensity level ni ..) ....heis using relative comparison to paint a picture to a patient on whata heart is, its function etc etc so that patient will somehow get theinformation that he really able to make sense of /digest insteadof using those jargon that he is unable to comprehend.
i could say that a human can describe what is green , salty or evenmasam masam manis , the taste of apple and cheese, haagen dasz cookisand cream, kuih bakaq, salty, tawaq , manis etc etc by just usingcomparison relative comparison .
In a way you could PROBE what a person really sees by just simply asking him to indicate his answer by any means.
If we dictate or determine how the answer is going to be like then it'll sound too rigid actually.
relative comparison.... haaa that's the key! untuk color kita boleh kata budak tu normal/tak normal just based on tests yang protocolnya based on relative comparison sahaja.
kalau tengok ishihara plates tu pun, the test works based on being able to distinguish different colors, and the distinction would create imaginary boundaries of regions which will be interpreted as lines and shapes that represent a number... again, relative comparison between colors. but how that color absolutely appears to a person, no way of testing that.so in short , if a cute looking big blue or green eyed - little boywink wink came to you and say dear daddy a green is like ...see ( heis showing /pointing to you the gRASS or the hoppers on the grass )then we will know that his green is like probably ( 95% , 5 % due tochance lah naa statistik kena kira jugak ) like yours too.
we have 0% chance of knowing that since we don't know how he absolutely perceives green. but the symptom/output/reaction to green stimulus is the same as ours so we say cute baby is 95% chance normal, normal in the sense of reaction to stimulus, not in the sense of seeing the same green as we do.
so thestrange little boy has the same perception of green but he just couldnot describe green as ;" the green light has the wavelength of so andso nanometre and ... " like the way a doctor describes a noun / anentity like the cardia...tu i concur with you but tang kita tak setujuialah bentuk jawapan kot ... hheheheh i redefined your perspective ker ? but when he pointed a little gooey goeey millipede then you should bescreaming ...well it is may be because the milipede could be acentipede ( hahaahaah the English labelled the - how many legs ananimal/ annelids? has by using length dimension, you noticed that ?wakakaka) or far more importantly when you are not too bothered aboutthe centi vs millipede and still keep on your cool , you would bethinking is the child having problem with his eyes or colour concepts?hmmm.....then you off ..sebab yer lah kan milipede tu gooey geliiii....
[quote]nidah masuk bab diri pulak ni... diri tu ada 4 komponen; roh, akal,nafsu, hati.. masalah kita tak boleh diukur secara saintifik pasalduduk kat interface antara akal dgn roh.
cara orwhen you discussing methodology , then i would say ALLAH will the onlyONe who knows how to measure things dear...it has written in Surah Al -A'la
second verse.
i think i have answered yours.....
but then
Mulder
could we derive a rule...perhaps we called it semantic rules...like
kalau entity / noun you could describe them in words
kalau an attribute / adjective type - you can't ...
[/quote]
ok... try this
describe these entities/nouns;
1. mass
2. distance or space (pick either)
3. time
4. I (saya)
no hard and fast rule for this |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Category: Belia & Informasi
|
Post time 29-1-2009 01:27 AM
