BehindTheMask Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 Evolution is certainly real' date=' along with Gravity.[/quote'] As I just explained on the 4th page, Gravity cannot be yet defined, so gtfo. Define the color "red." Oh wait...Red is one third of the visible light spectrum. Also, it is a sight sensation caused by the appropriate wavelenght inducing oxygen-based chemical reactions on the retina to occur, reactions that are electrically transmitted to the occipital lobe. But that's not the point. Yes, yes it is the point. I am color blind. I cannot see the color red or the color blue. To me, red doesn't exist. Just because I cannot see red, doesn't it make it non existent. Just like with gravity. We have defined gravity. Just because we cannot "see" gravity, does not mean that it doesn't exist.Frankly, red DOESN'T exist. It is just an illusion our brain creates. There are just simple, uncomplicated and 100% energy light waves that travel by the speed of light. Light exists for the whole universe. Red exists solely for our damn minds. Logical Fallicy ah hoy. First, you say something doesn't exist, but then you say it exists. Interesting. Anyway, red light does exist. In Physics, red light has a certain frequency. Anything that is red absorbs all visible light, except for red. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brushfire Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 Logical Fallicy ah hoy. Aha' date=' you're the only person other than myself that I know would say something like that. ='] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mindscatter Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 OMG let me reformulate. Red (wavelenght) IS TRIGGERED by a part of the spectrum defined by frequency. BUT the color red in itself is just a chemical reaction that is processed by the brain, so it is NOT REAL. So, as I said before, the third part of the visible light spectrum defined as red exists for the whole universe. Red as a colour exists solely for our minds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dweller of Parables Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 Rainbows are very good examples of wavelengths in action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mindscatter Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 Hey brushfire what is your IQ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BehindTheMask Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 OMG let me reformulate. Red (wavelenght) IS TRIGGERED by a part of the spectrum defined by frequency. BUT the color red in itself is just a chemical reaction that is processed by the brain' date=' so it is NOT REAL.[/quote'] But the wave length red and the color red are intertwined with each other. The Wavelength for red light exists, but the reflection of red light doesn't exist? How is that possible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dweller of Parables Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 Please don't tell me you took one of those free IQ tests that gave you 1/4 + of what your real IQ is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mindscatter Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 OMG let me reformulate. Red (wavelenght) IS TRIGGERED by a part of the spectrum defined by frequency. BUT the color red in itself is just a chemical reaction that is processed by the brain' date=' so it is NOT REAL.[/quote'] But the wave length red and the color red are intertwined with each other. The Wavelength for red light exists, but the reflection of red light doesn't exist? How is that possible?The color red is NOT the reflection of red, it is, as I said before, a chemical process that occurs inside conic cells. It requires oxygen, proteins and a whole lot of stuff that I don't care or know about.Please don't tell me you took one of those free IQ tests that gave you 1/4 + of what your real IQ is.I just wanted to say that my IQ is 120. And that's low (for me). A stupid person like me understanding all this = this stuff being easy to understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dweller of Parables Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 Some people understand some things others don't understand.That doesn't necessarily make you smart. >_> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mindscatter Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 I just said I AM NOT SMART. It's just that simplifying is the best way to analyse anything. And anyone that has an IQ of 80 or more can easily do simplifications. It is not hereditary talent, it's just way of thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BehindTheMask Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 OMG let me reformulate. Red (wavelenght) IS TRIGGERED by a part of the spectrum defined by frequency. BUT the color red in itself is just a chemical reaction that is processed by the brain' date=' so it is NOT REAL.[/quote'] But the wave length red and the color red are intertwined with each other. The Wavelength for red light exists, but the reflection of red light doesn't exist? How is that possible?The color red is NOT the reflection of red, it is, as I said before, a chemical process that occurs inside conic cells. It requires oxygen, proteins and a whole lot of stuff that I don't care or know about. So, you say, the color red is a chemical process that is inside conic cells. This reaction requires oxygen, proteins and other chemical compounds. All of these exist. So, you are saying Sentence A: This chemical reaction exists. Sentence B: This chemical reaction has productsSentence C: The Products of a chemical reaction don't exist. So, here is your contradiction. You cannot say Sentence A, Sentence B and Sentence C are true at the same time, or else you are logically wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dweller of Parables Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 I just copy pasted that :\Didn't say you were dumb or smart. Simplifying is sometimes the best way to analyze.OMG let me reformulate. Red (wavelenght) IS TRIGGERED by a part of the spectrum defined by frequency. BUT the color red in itself is just a chemical reaction that is processed by the brain' date=' so it is NOT REAL.[/quote'] But the wave length red and the color red are intertwined with each other. The Wavelength for red light exists, but the reflection of red light doesn't exist? How is that possible?The color red is NOT the reflection of red, it is, as I said before, a chemical process that occurs inside conic cells. It requires oxygen, proteins and a whole lot of stuff that I don't care or know about. So, you say, the color red is a chemical process that is inside conic cells. This reaction requires oxygen, proteins and other chemical compounds. All of these exist. So, you are saying Sentence A: This chemical reaction exists. Sentence B: This chemical reaction has productsSentence C: The Products of a chemical reaction don't exist. So, here is your contradiction. You cannot say Sentence A, Sentence B and Sentence C are true at the same time, or else you are logically wrong. That's what he gets for simplifying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mindscatter Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 @BehindTheMask: The Products of the chemical reaction are Vitamin D, caloric energy and an electric impulse. This electric impulse goes into our occipital lobe, exciting some parts of it that are designed to represent the sensation of "red" by bonding neurons together via synapses. I see Vitamin D, I see caloric energy, I see the electric impulse, I see the excited parts of the occipital lobe, I see neurons bonding via synapses. But I see no colour red. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BehindTheMask Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 @BehindTheMask: The Products of the chemical reaction are Vitamin D' date=' caloric energy and an electric impulse. This electric impulse goes into our occipital lobe, exciting some parts of it that are designed to represent the sensation of "red" by bonding neurons together via synapses. I see Vitamin D, I see caloric energy, I see the electric impulse, I see the excited parts of the occipital lobe, I see neurons bonding via synapses. But I see no colour red.[/quote'] I highly doubt you can see neurons, inside of your brain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dweller of Parables Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 He has super powahs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mindscatter Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 Ever heard about killing mice and keeping their brains alive (special liquids) for a short time to actually see neurons in action? (microscope power) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dweller of Parables Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 I highly doubt you did just that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mindscatter Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 I've seen documentaries. People actually did that. And a microscope is too expensive for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dweller of Parables Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 Documentaries are if not always..updated with new info.How long ago was it since you have seen such evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brushfire Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 Documentaries are if not always..updated with new info.How long ago was it since you have seen such evidence? That was a pretty lame defensive. =/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dweller of Parables Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 Documentaries are if not always..updated with new info.How long ago was it since you have seen such evidence? That was a pretty lame defensive. =/ It wasn't a defensive.But yes, that was lame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonny Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 Evolution sounds logic , but i don't believe it.... , i don't believe that we Humans and evolued from some apes.... <. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dweller of Parables Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 Evolution sounds logic ' date=' but i don't believe it.... , i don't believe that we Humans and evolued from some apes.... <.<[/quote'] It's funny to hear that humans are only evolved apes. Sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brushfire Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 Evolution sounds logic ' date=' but i don't believe it.... , i don't believe that we Humans and evolued from some apes.... <.<[/quote'] Don't believe it, or don't want to believe it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dweller of Parables Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 Evolution sounds logic ' date=' but i don't believe it.... , i don't believe that we Humans and evolued from some apes.... <.<[/quote'] Don't believe it, or don't want to believe it? Would have been cool if we were evolved "cool animal" instead of an ape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.