3 ms·

It matters because it will influence how we think about the world, what our premises are. Claiming there is red "out there" vs saying red is a construct in our

It matters because it will influence how we think about the world, what our premises are. Claiming there is red "out there" vs saying red is a construct in our brain leads to two very different understandings of the world. Its unimportant in many cases but important in some very important ones like how does our brain work and what is reality.

fenomas 9y ago
Nonsense. If A says "there's no such thing as red, because it's a human construct", and B says "there is such a thing as red, because human constructs are things", that disagreement doesn't stem from different premises about the world. There's no experiment one can imagine where A and B would predict different results. It's just two different ways of using the word "thing" - each as valid as the other. Either party could switch to the other's viewpoint without changing anything about how they see the world, they'd simply be defining a word differently.
- ThomPete 9y ago
  If one believe it's a human construct and the other doesn't and they decide to study science based on that they will end up with very different results. Furthermore depending on how you understand the world you will be encouraged or discouraged from pursuing various paths. So no it's not just about defining it differently it's about whether you believe red is "out there" or whether it's "in your mind" if you can't see why that's important then that's your problem not mine.
  - fenomas 9y ago
    > If one believe it's a human construct and the other doesn't and they decide to study science based on that they will end up with very different results. Give me an example of an experiment they'll predict different results for and I'll believe you. ;) If there isn't one, then your belief isn't paying rent - and arguing whether red is "out there" is as meaningful as arguing whether Wulky Wilkinson is a post-utopian. > http://lesswrong.com/lw/i3/making_beliefs_pay_rent_in_anticipated_experiences/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/i3/making_beliefs_pay_rent_in_antici...

fenomas 9y ago

Nonsense. If A says "there's no such thing as red, because it's a human construct", and B says "there is such a thing as red, because human constructs are things", that disagreement doesn't stem from different premises about the world. There's no experiment one can imagine where A and B would predict different results. It's just two different ways of using the word "thing" - each as valid as the other. Either party could switch to the other's viewpoint without changing anything about how they see the world, they'd simply be defining a word differently.

ThomPete 9y ago
If one believe it's a human construct and the other doesn't and they decide to study science based on that they will end up with very different results. Furthermore depending on how you understand the world you will be encouraged or discouraged from pursuing various paths. So no it's not just about defining it differently it's about whether you believe red is "out there" or whether it's "in your mind" if you can't see why that's important then that's your problem not mine.
- fenomas 9y ago
  > If one believe it's a human construct and the other doesn't and they decide to study science based on that they will end up with very different results. Give me an example of an experiment they'll predict different results for and I'll believe you. ;) If there isn't one, then your belief isn't paying rent - and arguing whether red is "out there" is as meaningful as arguing whether Wulky Wilkinson is a post-utopian. > http://lesswrong.com/lw/i3/making_beliefs_pay_rent_in_anticipated_experiences/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/i3/making_beliefs_pay_rent_in_antici...