Can color consciousness create corruption?

[coberst]

Can color consciousness create corruption?

Imagine that you and many other colorblind people live on this isolated island. All inhabitants are colorblind from birth and know nothing about color; there is no word for color in their vocabulary.

Assume Fred is a health nut who exercises constantly and is always advising others to start a strict exercise routine for their health. Fred is well liked but most people on the island think that he over emphasizes the value of exercise.

One day after pursuing a specific exercises routine Fred become conscious of color. He is shocked and frightened and discontinues the exercise. Many weeks later curiosity gets the best of him and he returns to the exercise routine and there again appears the perception of color.

Fred experiments with this matter and concludes that when he performs the afore mentioned exercise routine he can perceive color constantly.

If you were Fred would you inform your friends and acquaintances of this occurrence?

How would you explain this perception to others?

How would others respond to your efforts to explain what happened?

Does this little game of make-believe give you a better appreciation of why the Athenians executed Socrates for “corrupting the youth”?

[orbsycli]

Sounds like Freddy activated his Third Eye.
If I was Fred, I'd be super excited.

"I can see! I can see vibrant variations of everything we've never seen!"

or something?

[coberst]

It seems to me that Socrates was doing what Fred might do if he decided to speak to the Athenians about his discovery.

Socrates discovered something that was not common knowledge for the Athenians. Socrates discovered the power of thinking critically and of critical self-consciousness. Socrates was trying to convince the people that the unexamined life was not worth living. He was trying to introduce the citizens of Athens to something for which they had no preparation.

Socrates faced the same problem Fred would face if he were to speak to the people about his experience. Quite possibly Fred’s fate might very well be the same as was Socrates.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by coberst

If you were Fred would you inform your friends and acquaintances of this occurrence?

How would you explain this perception to others?

I’d labor to demonstrate that my perception has strongly linked to objective phenomenon that others could reproduce.

Everyone in my island community is able to perceive contrast and pattern. So, I’d construct a spectrometer. All that’s needed is a camera enclosure – an opaque-walled box or tube to protect from stray light and - a slit opening (a refracting medium such as glass would be nice, but I’m assuming that the only materials available are ones found on a undeveloped island, the only tools my bare hands, teeth, etc.).

I would then be able to show my colorblind cohabitants that light reflected from “blue” object cast a strip of gray light in a different position than that from “red” ones, and allow them to test me by comparing my unaided color reports with their spectroscope observations. As a result, although we might not be able to explain why I could perceive color, and they not, or how my exercises had caused me to gain this ability, we would at least agree that I was perceiving an objectively real quality, not hallucinating.

How would others respond to your efforts to explain what happened?

Due to my objective rigor, I expect others would accept my explanation, and seek to further it.

Does this little game of make-believe give you a better appreciation of why the Athenians executed Socrates for “corrupting the youth”?

The offered analogy is, I think, too inexact, confusing more than it clarifies. Although it is stated as such in well-known analogies attributed to Socrates, such as the Allegory of The Cave, Socrates was not literally perceiving objectively real phenomena that others did not, but offering a different interpretation of their common perception of the senses. With no means to assert the observer-independent reality of his position, Socrates could rely only on argument to sway people to his beliefs, a much weaker approach than one in which all parties can agree on independently verifiable facts. It’s enough to drive one to drink hemlock.

It should be clear from my answer that I am a strict materialist. With this position comes a preference for that which can be observed to that which can only be believed through indoctrination, and a worldview in which the utility of philosophical doctrines such as Socrates’s are limited to their ability to provide improved methods of organizing objectively verifiable observations.

[coberst]

Craig

I have been posting on Internet forums for three years and my experience leads me to conclude that I may now better understand what happened to Socrates.

The point is that humans can see only what they are prepared to see. Humans, when encountering a new idea, are much like the turtle, both will withdraw into their shell until that new thing goes away or until that new thing stays there long enough to no longer be new. The problem is for the individual producing the new idea being able to survive the waiting period.

I can imagine the response that Fred’s attempt to inform his fellows on the island about his experience might bring. The first response would be a combination of laughter, derision, and anger. Later the laughter would die and only derision and anger would remain. Much later we would see such things as Socrates encountered, i.e. possible violence. It is this anger that I have not yet been able to understand.

I am led to conclude that herein we can see the value of literature and humor. I do not think any form of direct rational explanation would be of much use, but if a person could prepare the people for this new reality through wit and fiction then they might slowly be led unto accepting the new thoughts and finally actually performing the exercise and becoming color perceptive.

Another idea has come to me about this kind of problem. When a person seeks out disinterested knowledge because s/he wishes to understand something, that person is gaining knowledge about a new idea that, if introduced by other means, would be given the turtle treatment. In other words people who have become self-actualizing self-learners learn new ideas constantly that they would have given angry rejection to under other circumstances such as our colorblind game.

I think of myself as being a materialist also.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by coberst

I can imagine the response that Fred’s attempt to inform his fellows on the island about his experience might bring. The first response would be a combination of laughter, derision, and anger. Later the laughter would die and only derision and anger would remain. Much later we would see such things as Socrates encountered, i.e. possible violence.

I imagine that Fred’s reaction would depend on how he attempted to inform his fellows, and the beliefs of his fellows.

If Fred’s delivery consisted of something like
“I am able to perceive something no one else can. Because I am the only person who can perceive this, no one can judge the truth of my revelation. It’s obvious to me that I am right, though, and every one should believe me on faith. Also, if other people will engage in these exercise routines (the value of which most of you think I overemphasize), they will also be able to perceive it. Everyone, follow me!”
I imagine the response would be as coberst describes.

If Fred delivered his information as I described in post #2, I imagine he would be believed, unless a there was a common belief among his fellows that people were capable of supernatural acts. If such beliefs were widespread, I imagine the reaction might be something like this:
Fred: “Look at the image in this spectroscope I built. Notice that the line for this object, which I call ‘blue’, is in this position. Now notice that the line for this one, which I call ‘red’, is in this position.”
Fellows: “Fred is obviously a dangerous witch, with the power to move the line of light in this diabolical contraption he built. And what do we do with witches?”
Other fellows: “WE BURN ‘EM!”
Fred: “Uh oh …”

It is this anger that I have not yet been able to understand.

The anger is, to me, very understandable.

Someone who asks others to believe something they are unable to confirm that conflicts with their existing beliefs, and can’t be verified with the rational, skeptical tools at their disposal, is believed to be crazy. If they successfully convince many others to share their belief, their insanity is seen as contagious. As with any contagion, people will seek to contain it, by discrediting, exiling, imprisoning, or killing its source.

It’s not sufficient to have a good idea. One must be able to express that idea in a way that either does not attack existing widespread irrational beliefs, or can be confirmed by compelling rational means. In the latter case, such an idea can change existing beliefs.

[coberst]

Craig

If only Socrates had understood this matter as well as you have described it he would have perhaps had a longer life.