Termyn8or
Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Goddammit, prove it. Prove one muthafukin thing to my satisfaction. I triple dare you to try.
The sky is blue.
First of all frequently the sky is overcast and not blue, even if we can figure out what blue is. Blue is supposedly one of the primary colors, as used in a TV set to mix with other primary colors to produce a somewhat accurate color image. However what is blue ? I have seen it happen where in a TV the colors are interpolated, that is possibly say the blue signal sent to the red, the red sent to the green, like that. Now prove to me that everyone sees the same blue.
Don't even start yet. It is entirely possible that some have always seen blue as red, but it has been defined as blue all their life. Let's say they see people's skin color as some yicky bluish green rather than the hues I see personally. However, they have seen the world this way for all their lives so it looks perfectly natural to them. It always has, Mommy and Daddy from day one looked like that, and I look like that, what's the problem ?
The problem is that you can't definitely say that this assertion is not true. Neither can I. I can say that it is possible, but no more. It actually seems plausible to me, as color perception is in the brain, not the eye. By the same token, grass could be seen as dirt brown while the dirt is lush green, but again they have always seen it this way. If the color perception in my brain and their's were interpolated it might take some getting used to. I might have to water my green lawn until it becomes brown and lush again.
In all this I have not one shred of proof. I might even point out that this flimsy assertion is supported by the fact that different people have different favorite colors. Supportive evidence ? Possibly. Proof ? I don't think so.
Now in this particular case, this is something to do with perception and the physical world in which we live. The laws of nature are the harshest of all. It is a known fact that different people hear differently. That each unique human ear equalizes the sound in a slightly different way than another's. What's more we have very little idea about just how all this is processed in the brain.
Sound might make for another half decent analogy. At work I have a signal generator that puts out a 400Hz sine wave to test audio systems and whatever. I can keep the level so low that I can barely hear it, but it gives E a headache clear across the shop. I have ridden in E's car and he turned on the tunes. He's jamming along and I think it sounds so shitty that I would simply turn it off. I can flip the knob and make the frequency 8,000Hz and he can't even hear it - just barely, but it will drive me up the wall from two doors down. Are your favorite songs chosen by the lyrics or the sound qualities of the accompaniment ?
I, like alot of people like bass. Others can't stand it. To me there is nothing better than shaking the whole neighborhood, but that is not my goal. The idea is not only to hear it, but to feel it as well. Many $$$ have been spent to that end and I am not the only one. But what of the Hispanics ? They drive around with bongo music cranked up enjoying the hell out of it while others say "Get some real bass in that thing". Of course that doesn't work because the low frequency content simply isn't there, so even ten subwoofers would sit there pretty much idle. But they spend as much on their ghetto blasters as anyone else and are perfectly happy with them.
So account for the diffenrence without the factor of differing perceptions, I mean physical perceptions, not anything culturally influenced. Some can be culturally influenced to put a bone in their nose, that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about proof that all aesthetic preferences are culturally based in some way, rather than an actual difference in perception.
Moving on, you have a picture, a nice big picture depicting say five really hot hot babes. Just to remove as many variables as possible, they are all of the same ethnicity and body type, in fact look quite similar with the fine features and so forth. They differ only in eye and hair color, although that could be eliminated if need be. Now you take five guys and put them in front of this picture, and again each is of the same ethinicity and body type. Shoot laser beams at their cornea' to determine which of the girls in the picture each one is looking at. I don't think anyone would assert that all the guys would be eyeing one of the girls in the picture, and to make it even more empirical, get them all with the same hair and eye color, weight within ounces of one another and they are all supermodels. Even under these conditions it would be foolish to think they would all be looking at the same one of the five. Given this, is this preference innate or culturally based somehow ?
Why do I find red hair attractive ? I don't mean that crappy orange (sorry) I mean RED ! I mean that dark red that glows like a gem in the sunlight, that almost looks brown indoors (but I know better), the red that is truly red. Is it the rarity possibly, like green eyes ? I have no real preference for green eyes but many do, in fact there has been a song or two written about it. Green eyes are relatively rare, is that it or is it a matter of something else ?
Where is all this going ? Well put on the brakes because we are there. The sky is blue "click here" for proof. Green eyes are nice "click here" for proof. Grass is green "click here" for proof. The green of the grass is similar to the green of some people's eyes, read on for proof. Even if you see the green as red or blue, you always have. The frequency of the light waves are similar. That is why you see a similarity. We are talking about the EM spectrum here, not your perceptional differences, anly the sameness due to what is presented to the eye. It is proven that the perception of the two examples is at least similar, but does nothing to prove that you are not seeing my red as green, nor that I am not seeing your green as blue. The red light to you may appear as green, but it has been defined as red, therefore you call it red and hopefully you stop at a red light. As green as it can be, you call it red. No matter what everyone else actually sees they have always called it red.
Before this gets too long, I will make my prime assertion. Nobody can prove anything, period. Even actually witnessing events is not proof. No two people can occupy the same space at the same time so they will have different perspectives. That's why there are a bunch of referees at a football game. That's why scientific papers are published for peer review. And that's why CM members argue profusely, because they don't see that sometimes one Man's proof is another's gibberish. What is missing is objectivity.
Real proof rarely presents itself in a timely fashion. I could assert that the tax tables have changed and you will not know until you get the next 1040 form. Unreal proof got us into a ridiculous war in Iraq, but was accepted by how many ? As such, I believe that separation of the truth from the assertations, or lies, is of paramount importance. The lack of such hard reasoning is affecting our lives, our well being and in fact our very existence.
The way I see it unfortunately, is because of the lack of timely proof we make alot of mistakes. Timely is a strong word. For example if you are driving along at 80 MPH and come up to a stationary object you will Tbone it. If you are pregnant the proof will be sucking a bottle or a teat in nine months. If you point a gun at a wall and pull the trigger there will be a hole in the wall. In each case real proof exists, but never before the fact. At 80 MPH you might be able to swerve into another lane. If opregnant there is the possibility of a miscarriage or abortion. And if the gun is not loaded there will be no hole in the wall.
I hope that now people have a bit of insight as to what constitutes proof for me. Law enforcement agrees. In general LEOs do not aim to prevent or deter crime, they focus on detecting and prosecuting it after the fact. This is logical because what can they do to anyone for what they haven't yet done ? Simple logic. The supreme court ruled it, which believe it or not, does not constitute proof.
To me, real proof lies in the results. Ironically more real proof lies in unintended results than those which were sought.
To change my attitude is more easily said than done. Just recently in a den of, well cohorts, someone said I was overthinking the situation. My response ? "Anyone without a number raise your hand". Without a number means never convincted of a felony. Maybe I do overthink things, but it works for me. Well over half the people I know have been in the joint, and when they start to try to tell me something they get buried in their tracks. It is getting to the point where they will almost listen. If I say don't do it, that means I see an unreasonable risk. They are starting to learn that they don't see the whole picture. But this applies to everything. With that reasoning, I was not there in the 1700s, so the only proof I have that the Constitution exists is the lip service "they" give. The only evidence we have the the Wright brothers were right is when we see a plane fly in the sky.
I have a book entitled Advanced Level Physics by Nelkon and Parker which goes into real proof. In it they describe how to prove definitively the boiling point of water. It involves being at sea level with normal barometric pressure and it involves a bent piece of tubing somehow, I can't recall all the details. The speed of light is absolutely proven with the use of a cylinder with multiple mirrors on bearings which allows it to spin. There is a series of light orifices and a light source. The speed of light is proven by a shadow appearing when the cylinder reaches a certain RPM. There is no other explaination for this shadow. It is proven because of the rate at which the light rays are interrupted. The test is completely flawless IMO. The speed of light is calculated by the distance involved and the RPM of the mirrored cylinder. The boiling point of water is proven (or defined) by the presence of bubbles at a certain point in a marked piece of tubing, which is marked in precise measurements relating to the specific gravity of H2O.
In specifics of human interaction, which includes law and society, no such definitive proof is or ever will be available. History is not real unless you have lived it. How do we know anything about what happened before we were born ? Indeed what can we trust for the truth of what happens even during our lifespan ? Did we see Saddam trying to make a bomb ? Did we see that all these conspiracy therories are incorrect, that they are all figments of someone's imagination, despite Men getting rich raping the land and our people ?
It is stated that the transistor which replaced the tube (or valve) in electronics was invented at Bell Labs in the 1950s. I work with these things all day, and have designed and built things using them. They exist, there is proof of that, but how do I know who invented the thing ? In fact I doubt the guy's name was Bell Labs, he just worked for them therefore they get the credit, does anyone even know his name ? Ranson Eli Olds was said to have invented the prototype of the modern automobile. First. But who's to say that some guy across the country or even next door didn't do it the day before but got run over by a horse and buggy or a Stanley steamer before he could reveal his discovery to the world. Who invented TV, Farnsworth or Baird ? What is commonly called a deisel should be called a White because it was invented at White Motors in the US and spposedly Rudolf Deisel who worked there took the plans off to Germany in a hurry on got a patent. This was before international patent laws, which are still inadequate to this day.
But how do I know any of this happened ?
T
|
Prove it - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread