It was a joke?
Comment on shrimp colour drama
Guns0rWeD13@lemmy.world 1 month agoif two people can both point to red and agree that it’s red, that’s close enough. anything beyond that is just pointless esoteric debate.
voodooattack@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Hudell@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
Some people see numbers instead/along with colors, and different people see different numbers, so I guess the colors might be different between people too
WhiteOakBayou@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I would be way more surprised if people who saw numbers with colors all saw the same numbers.
ArsonButCute@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
I disagree that it’s pointless. I think it may be beneficial to humanity (eventually) to establish whether or not there is an objective reality which we all experience.
Guns0rWeD13@lemmy.world 1 month ago
i agree, but that’s a job for neuroscience, quantum mechanics, and psychology; not a pack of dorks on the fediverse.
ArsonButCute@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
But I want to contribute to humanity in a meaningful way!
-me, a dork on the Fediverse nearly incapable of contributing to humanity in a meaninful way
JuxtaposedJaguar@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
Hey now, you could be the person to force manufacturers to add a new type of warning label to random products!
Guns0rWeD13@lemmy.world 1 month ago
buy guns
Sedathems@mander.xyz 1 month ago
it’s more in the philosophy ballpark, which shapes the interpretration of methodology and the consequences, in my humble opinion.
Zacryon@feddit.org 1 month ago
But what if the dorks on the fediverse are scientists?
Guns0rWeD13@lemmy.world 1 month ago
then by all means
pcalau12i@lemmy.world 1 month ago
There is no way to “establish whether or not there is an objective reality.” It’s a philosophical position. You either take the reality which we observe and study as part of the material sciences to be objective reality, or you don’t believe it’s objective reality and think it is all sort of invented in the “mind” somehow. Either position you take, you cannot prove or disprove either one, because even if you take the latter position, no evidence I prevent to you could change your mind because to be presented evidence would only mean for that evidence to appear in the mind, and thus wouldn’t prove anything. The best argument we can make is just taking the reality we observe as indeed reality is just philosophically simpler, but that also requires you to philosophically value simplicity, which you cannot prove that with science either.