Originally Posted by Brian Rush

You have that exactly backwards.

I'm reminded of how you dogmatically insisted that birds who see into the ultraviolet don't see any more colors than we do. This, even though the birds see all of the same colors that we do, AND ALSO ultraviolet light (however it appears to them), which means they MUST see at least one additional color that we don't.

I'm not inclined to go back down that rabbit hole at the moment.

Anyway, it's possible that we do see red exactly the same way, but there's no way to know. We DO, however, label "red" in exactly the same way: everything that I say is red, you also say is red, whether we are experiencing "red" in the same way or not.

You say "you experience it when seeing the same things I do" which "allows us to identify what part of the spectrum gives rise to the experience of that color". So I guess you mean we see the same things, when you say that we "label red in the same way." I'm not sure how we are able to determine that others see the apple in the same color that we do, except that through science observers have identified the same color they see on an apple, with a wavelength they observe as having the same color. How did that same process happen before people knew about wavelengths? I guess they exchanged what they knew, and came to a consensus.

I don't think it's an accident that people have some common associations with particular colors. It's part of the archetype of that color.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You say "you experience it when seeing the same things I do" which "allows us to identify what part of the spectrum gives rise to the experience of that color". So I guess you mean we see the same things, when you say that we "label red in the same way." I'm not sure how we are able to determine that others see the apple in the same color that we do

Excuse me. You seem to have misunderstood. Perhaps I didn't explain clearly what I meant. Let me try again.

We are each looking at a sunset. We can point to the same clouds, and say "that's red." The clouds are the "things" that we are both seeing. What color we are seeing, internally, is individual and we may not be seeing those clouds the same, but we will both label them "red." The clouds are things. Our experience of red is not a thing. We see the same things, and label them the same way. We don't necessarily experience the same thing in doing so. (Although we may. We can't verify that we don't, any more than we can verify that we do.)

It's possible that what you experience when you label something "red," is what I experience when I label something "green." You and I see these two colors reversed, yet we attach the same labels nonetheless, because we have learned to associate the internal experience (whatever it may be) with a certain color label.

Clearer now, I hope.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I'm not inclined to go back down that rabbit hole at the moment.



You say "you experience it when seeing the same things I do" which "allows us to identify what part of the spectrum gives rise to the experience of that color". So I guess you mean we see the same things, when you say that we "label red in the same way." I'm not sure how we are able to determine that others see the apple in the same color that we do, except that through science observers have identified the same color they see on an apple, with a wavelength they observe as having the same color. How did that same process happen before people knew about wavelengths? I guess they exchanged what they knew, and came to a consensus.

I don't think it's an accident that people have some common associations with particular colors. It's part of the archetype of that color.

One more on the importance of the brain in color perception.

Color Perception Is Not In The Eye Of The Beholder: It's In The Brain

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1026082313.htm
… "”Those early experiments showed that everyone we tested has the same color experience despite this really profound difference in the front-end of their visual system,” says Hofer. "That points to some kind of normalization or auto-calibration mechanism—some kind of circuit in the brain that balances the colors for you no matter what the hardware is."
In a related experiment, Williams and a postdoctoral fellow Yasuki Yamauchi, working with other collaborators from the Medical College of Wisconsin, gave several people colored contacts to wear for four hours a day. While wearing the contacts, people tended to eventually feel as if they were not wearing the contacts, just as people who wear colored sunglasses tend to see colors "correctly" after a few minutes with the sunglasses. The volunteers' normal color vision, however, began to shift after several weeks of contact use. Even when not wearing the contacts, they all began to select a pure yellow that was a different wavelength than they had before wearing the contacts.
"Over time, we were able to shift their natural perception of yellow in one direction, and then the other," says Williams. "This is direct evidence for an internal, automatic calibrator of color perception. These experiments show that color is defined by our experience in the world, and since we all share the same world, we arrive at the same definition of colors."”…

Radind, without disputing that the brain is the most important part of color perception (rather unsurprising, actually), the article is incorrect to assert that the experiments "showed that everyone we tested has the same color experience." Not only did the experiment show nothing of the kind, but it's fundamentally, inherently, and ontologically impossible EVER to show that. We can show that the functions of color perception are the same (or aren't), but subjective experience IS NOT a function and there is no way to observe it, hence no way to show anything about it.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Radind, without disputing that the brain is the most important part of color perception (rather unsurprising, actually), the article is incorrect to assert that the experiments "showed that everyone we tested has the same color experience." Not only did the experiment show nothing of the kind, but it's fundamentally, inherently, and ontologically impossible EVER to show that. We can show that the functions of color perception are the same (or aren't), but subjective experience IS NOT a function and there is no way to observe it, hence no way to show anything about it.

We can disute the validity of the study, but they did claim some experimental basis for the findings. This study surprised me.

..."Each subject was asked to tune the color of a disk of light to produce a pure yellow light that was neither reddish yellow nor greenish yellow. Everyone selected nearly the same wavelength of yellow, showing an obvious consensus over what color they perceived yellow to be. Once Williams looked into their eyes, however, he was surprised to see that the number of long- and middle-wavelength cones—the cones that detect red, green, and yellow—were sometimes profusely scattered throughout the retina, and sometimes barely evident. The discrepancy was more than a 40:1 ratio, yet all the volunteers were apparently seeing the same color yellow.
"Those early experiments showed that everyone we tested has the same color experience despite this really profound difference in the front-end of their visual system," says Hofer. "That points to some kind of normalization or auto-calibration mechanism—some kind of circuit in the brain that balances the colors for you no matter what the hardware is." '...

I'm still not happy with the way I explained what I'm talking about above.

Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that the subjective color-experience that I call "red" is the same as the subjective color-experience Eric calls "blue." What he calls "red," is the same subjective color-experience that I call "blue."

When Eric looks at, say, blood, he has the same subjective color-experience that I have when looking at a robin's egg. But that doesn't matter. When each of us learned the names for colors, we learned to call the subjective color-experience that happens when we see blood "red," and the subjective color-experience that happens when we see a robin's egg "blue." This really doesn't have anything to do with archetypes. It's all about learning to talk. What exactly that subjective color-experience is in each case, I know for myself, but I don't know for Eric (or anyone else). However, each of us has a certain subjective color-experience whenever we see reflected light in a particular wavelength region, consistently -- that is, it's always the same for me, even if it's different from what Eric experiences. When I see blood, I don't necessarily have the same subjective color-experience that Eric does when he sees blood. But I do have roughly the same subjective color-experience as I have when I see a ripe tomato. Eric may not have the same subjective color-experience on seeing a ripe tomato that I do when I see a ripe tomato, but he will have the same subjective color-experience as when he sees blood. This consistency for each individual perceiver is what allows us to create color labels that work -- not consistency of experience between perceivers, but consistency from one object to another for the same perceiver.

So when I tell Eric that (for example) a certain person has red hair, I'm not describing my own subjective experience of seeing the person's hair. I'm telling Eric what HE will experience when he sees the same person. And that works, because Eric will see colors in the person's hair similar to what he sees in a sunset. And so do I. And that's all that matters.

Radind: See my post above, and apply the same reasoning to what each person did with the color wheel.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Excuse me. You seem to have misunderstood. Perhaps I didn't explain clearly what I meant. Let me try again.

We are each looking at a sunset. We can point to the same clouds, and say "that's red." The clouds are the "things" that we are both seeing. What color we are seeing, internally, is individual and we may not be seeing those clouds the same, but we will both label them "red." The clouds are things. Our experience of red is not a thing. We see the same things, and label them the same way. We don't necessarily experience the same thing in doing so. (Although we may. We can't verify that we don't, any more than we can verify that we do.)

It's possible that what you experience when you label something "red," is what I experience when I label something "green." You and I see these two colors reversed, yet we attach the same labels nonetheless, because we have learned to associate the internal experience (whatever it may be) with a certain color label.

Clearer now, I hope.

I hope I understand; I think, your statement.

I liked your answer to TnT, and I wonder what his reply will be.

Originally Posted by radind

One more on the importance of the brain in color perception.

That's an interesting experiment. I think it shows that color is not wavelength, it's "in the brain." Not being a materialist, I interpret this somewhat differently; that "internal calibrator" is the mind or soul that operates and is conscious of the brain. But that may be a minor point here. I agree "we share the same world," and I would say yes we arrive at the same definition of colors, because "our experience of the world" is our experience of the world.

In other words, colors are real; we don't create them in our minds. When we see a color, we are there, at the color; not just in our brains. Rupert Sheldrake was talking about this some pages back, about perception. When we perceive something, it is not something or someone inside our brains perceiving it; we are there, at the something perceived, and what is perceived, is in us, simultaneously. It is not a mechanical process. It is much, much simpler than that. We are there; period.

Truth is generally simple; we complicate it with our minds.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Radind: See my post above, and apply the same reasoning to what each person did with the color wheel.

I am just amazed that we can agree on anything regarding color. Probably have beat this horse enough.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

That's an interesting experiment. I think it shows that color is not wavelength, it's "in the brain." Not being a materialist, I interpret this somewhat differently; that "internal calibrator" is the mind or soul that operates and is conscious of the brain. But that may be a minor point here. I agree "we share the same world," and I would say yes we arrive at the same definition of colors, because "our experience of the world" is our experience of the world.

In other words, colors are real; we don't create them in our minds. When we see a color, we are there, at the color; not just in our brains. Rupert Sheldrake was talking about this some pages back, about perception. When we perceive something, it is not something or someone inside our brains perceiving it; we are there, at the something perceived, and what is perceived, is in us, simultaneously. It is not a mechanical process. It is much, much simpler than that. We are there; period.

Truth is generally simple; we complicate it with our minds.

Last one on color-I promise.
There are a lot of internet posts on the perception of the color Magenta.
I would like to think that the truth is simple. Some things are more complex than expected.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2009/...-is-a-magenta/

…”The truth is, no color actually exists outside of our brain's perception of it. Everything we call a color—and there are a lot more than what comes in your box of Crayolas—only exists in our heads. We define color in terms of how our brains process the stimuli produced by a mix of wavelengths in the range of 400–700nm hitting specialized cells in our eyes—"one, or any mixture, of the constituents into which light can be separated in a spectrum or rainbow," says the OED. Elliot’s article might be better titled, “ magenta is not a single wavelength of electromagnetic radiation in the 'visible' spectrum, but our brain perceives it anyway." “…

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Radind, without disputing that the brain is the most important part of color perception (rather unsurprising, actually), the article is incorrect to assert that the experiments "showed that everyone we tested has the same color experience." Not only did the experiment show nothing of the kind, but it's fundamentally, inherently, and ontologically impossible EVER to show that. We can show that the functions of color perception are the same (or aren't), but subjective experience IS NOT a function and there is no way to observe it, hence no way to show anything about it.

There are different forms of color-blindness from partial to total. Such can change how people perceive much information because much information is color-coded.

Let's break this down a bit, if it hasn't already been deconstructed too much already!

First, we have light in either a pure wavelength or a mixture of wavelengths coming in ... don't even need an eyeball for this to happen.

Then we have this light hitting the eyeball and then the optic nerves ... here we DO need an eyeball and optic nerves.

Then the optic nerves are stimulated and pass the signal along to the brain's optic center(s).

The brain processes the signal and then ... and then ... and then ...

If the person has LEARNED OR BEEN TAUGHT that this particular processed signal is "Red," then that is what it tells us. Anyone who has raised children probably has memories of teaching a child his colors.

I can remember clearly my oldest grandson, when the "light" went on. I showed him something yellow, and he yelled "YEWWOWWW!! And he was just pleased as punch. No matter what I showed him, he now had the concept .

So ... the letter "R" + "E" + "D" makes up the word "Red," which is clearly an abstraction, which all words are. In fact words that are abstractions may be one of the very things that are unique about humans. Our languages are nothing more than abstraction machines that allow us to communicate an infinity of nuance to one another.

And yeah, we can agree on shared experience that my LEARNED response to a given wavelength of light turns out to be the same as your LEARNED response to that same wavelength or mixture of wavelengths.

And finally, it happens that my wife is a pretty good artist and has studied color. There is a tremendous amount of technical knowledge behind what goes into a mixture of colors in order to produce some very interesting responses in people. But that's a completely different rabbit hole.

Originally Posted by TnT

Let's break this down a bit, if it hasn't already been deconstructed too much already!

First, we have light in either a pure wavelength or a mixture of wavelengths coming in ... don't even need an eyeball for this to happen.

Then we have this light hitting the eyeball and then the optic nerves ... here we DO need an eyeball and optic nerves.

Then the optic nerves are stimulated and pass the signal along to the brain's optic center(s).

The brain processes the signal and then ... and then ... and then ...

If the person has LEARNED OR BEEN TAUGHT that this particular processed signal is "Red," then that is what it tells us. Anyone who has raised children probably has memories of teaching a child his colors.

I can remember clearly my oldest grandson, when the "light" went on. I showed him something yellow, and he yelled "YEWWOWWW!! And he was just pleased as punch. No matter what I showed him, he now had the concept .

So ... the letter "R" + "E" + "D" makes up the word "Red," which is clearly an abstraction, which all words are. In fact words that are abstractions may be one of the very things that are unique about humans. Our languages are nothing more than abstraction machines that allow us to communicate an infinity of nuance to one another.

I remember learning the colors. Words are abstractions. They are labels for the realities we experience. The word "red" is not the color red. We are taught the word for red; we see the color as it is. We don't see red because we are taught to see it. It is not arbitrary. We are taught to communicate our experience through language. We learn the words for things we already know. We don't know things because we are taught the words for them. Language philosophy has it backwards.

And yeah, we can agree on shared experience that my LEARNED response to a given wavelength of light turns out to be the same as your LEARNED response to that same wavelength or mixture of wavelengths.

And finally, it happens that my wife is a pretty good artist and has studied color. There is a tremendous amount of technical knowledge behind what goes into a mixture of colors in order to produce some very interesting responses in people. But that's a completely different rabbit hole.

But it's the one that leads to a real understanding of colors, whereas the stuff about wavelengths, optic nerves, eyeballs and optic centers in the brain tell us absolutely nothing about colors.

But, people believe in this physicalist paradigm because they are used to it. It's a much of a religion as Christianity. It is convenient because it provides technology to us. It cuts us off from life and from our environment. My opinion is that this ideology is one reason for global warming and pollution. We think we exist cut off from our environment, and so we feel free to trash it. We forget that we are it, and it is us. We are not egos in bags of skin, or little tiny selves inside brains. The world does not come into us by means of nerves and brains; we are already there, and the world is inside us. We are the universe itself focused in a particular organic process. We are not cut off and alienated from the Earth inside our skulls. We see the world as it is, because we are it, and it is us. It just takes a shift in perception to see this.

I am aware that I have more than empirical experiments to tell me about the world. I don't devalue those experiments at all. I just know there's more, too. One of those modes of knowing can be called intuition, and by that means I observe the nature of the color wheel. I also know that a wheel is a symbol that puts its subject matter into a comprehensive whole. By that means, I know that the colors on the wheel shade into each other perfectly. So, there are no colors outside the wheel at all, except that the colors also combine with all color (white) and no color (black) as well as combined colors (brown) to form various tints.

Within this color wheel, the colors around the wheel come in a definite sequence. Red does not shade into yellow; orange comes between, and so on. Somewhat different wheels exist for light than for pigment. But on all wheels there are primary colors, from which the other colors are derived, starting with secondary colors. And there are opposites. These are archetypal patterns, and can be explained in no other way except archetypally. Plato was right; forms exist. Similar patterns exist in music. I don't see any explanation for why octaves exist other than the archetypal pattern of the spiral. Explaining why we might hear sounds, or see colors, does not explain why notes and colors exist in patterns.

Color experts know a lot more than I do about the specifics of how colors combine, how opposites are seen under certain conditions, how our perceptions are formed, etc. We can understand all these things, but they don't change the archetypal nature of colors.

Seeing this aspect of nature and reality does help restore a sense of wonder to the world. It is fascinating!

Agree or not, the discussion is interesting.

Originally Posted by radind

Last one on color-I promise.
There are a lot of internet posts on the perception of the color Magenta.
I would like to think that the truth is simple. Some things are more complex than expected.

Magenta is archetypal, so it doesn't matter if it is not in the visible light spectrum. It exists anyway. We see magenta flowers because the flowers are magenta-colored. Combined wavelengths in the brain allow us to see it. But what we see, is what there is; we don't make the flowers magenta colored.

Eric:

There's a real problem with the idea of colors as archetypes. It requires thinking of them as discrete units, so that there's a separate category of what is red from what is orange. But that's not how our eyes see. We see a range of color from very deep red (almost infrared) to very cool violet (almost ultraviolet). The distinctions from one color to another are creations of language, not of how we see. I can look at two differently-colored objects and see that there is a difference between them; that part's real and intrinsic to vision. But calling both the daytime sky and a U.S. Navy dress jacket "blue" puts two rather different colors in the same category.

I would disagree with you that understanding the physics and chemistry of vision tells us nothing. I would agree that they don't tell us everything, but that again is the difference between detached and immersive knowing. It's useful to understand the electromagnetic spectrum, and that portion of it that we call the visible spectrum (for the obvious reason that we can see it), because, for one thing, it reinforces the fact that color is a continuum rather than a set of discrete categories.

Finally, any color we can see IS part of the visible spectrum. That includes magenta. Oh, and also, this may be obvious, but the rules for color combinations are very different when combining light, than when combining pigments. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Additive_color

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Eric:

There's a real problem with the idea of colors as archetypes. It requires thinking of them as discrete units, so that there's a separate category of what is red from what is orange. But that's not how our eyes see. We see a range of color from very deep red (almost infrared) to very cool violet (almost ultraviolet). The distinctions from one color to another are creations of language, not of how we see. I can look at two differently-colored objects and see that there is a difference between them; that part's real and intrinsic to vision. But calling both the daytime sky and a U.S. Navy dress jacket "blue" puts two rather different colors in the same category.

Yes, I dealt with that in my Masters Paper. It lays out the arguments on both sides, and resolves them at least to my way of thinking. I don't use the word "archetypes" though, but "essences" and "forms." Archetype is the word that Strauss and Howe use.

You're right; that is a problem with archetypes. I looked at this issue quite a bit, and I came down to seeing archetypes as true, but only if change and experience are also true. So, there's different ways of looking at it. Where I agree with you is that the color blue is not the word blue, which lumps lots of colors under one name. I don't think the name has much to do with it, and that if archetypes exist, they are more than discreet categories, generalities and names; they are more like rhythms and patterns.

I would disagree with you that understanding the physics and chemistry of vision tells us nothing. I would agree that they don't tell us everything, but that again is the difference between detached and immersive knowing. It's useful to understand the electromagnetic spectrum, and that portion of it that we call the visible spectrum (for the obvious reason that we can see it), because, for one thing, it reinforces the fact that color is a continuum rather than a set of discrete categories.

It is so, and the interesting thing to me about it is that it's a continuum, and yet there are definite differences and patterns in it. There's no continuum, unless there are also distinctions that the continuum runs through (continuum between what, then?). For me, Bergson's statement I quoted at the end of my paper means a lot. In consciousness, there's no difference between changing from one state to another, and persisting in the same state. So, there's a point of view in which distinctions and continuity happen at the same time. If it were not so, life would be nothing but an inchoate blur. But a world of discreet categories is equally impossible; everything is connected and no boundaries can be affixed.

Finally, any color we can see IS part of the visible spectrum. That includes magenta. Oh, and also, this may be obvious, but the rules for color combinations are very different when combining light, than when combining pigments. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Additive_color

Yes, I mentioned that.

The words for colors refer to a concept, and the concept applies to a section of the visible spectrum and the way light of that wavelength appears to vision. I would suggest that a color-word, such as "blue," refers to some value right about the center of the "blue" portion of the spectrum, and colors more or less close to this value are also called "blue." Is that what you mean?

When I, as an occultist, deal with "archetypes," I am referring to a meaning and (potentially) either a source of magical power, or an association for channeling it. Colors, for me, are not themselves archetypes, but qualities that link to archetypes. For example, when doing elemental magic, the colors red, blue, yellow, and green link to fire, water, air, and earth, respectively.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The words for colors refer to a concept, and the concept applies to a section of the visible spectrum and the way light of that wavelength appears to vision. I would suggest that a color-word, such as "blue," refers to some value right about the center of the "blue" portion of the spectrum, and colors more or less close to this value are also called "blue." Is that what you mean?

Yes indeed.

When I, as an occultist, deal with "archetypes," I am referring to a meaning and (potentially) either a source of magical power, or an association for channeling it. Colors, for me, are not themselves archetypes, but qualities that link to archetypes. For example, when doing elemental magic, the colors red, blue, yellow, and green link to fire, water, air, and earth, respectively.

I see them both as archetypes, and there are links between them, as you say, an association, and I refer to the same association set in my articles.

I published something on my blog today that might be of interest here.

https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.co...consciousness/

Leave it to Charlie Rose to fall into the materialism trap again and again. There he goes agin'! Interviewing Neil DeGrasse Tyson, king of contemporary materialists, on CBS' 60 Minutes.

No doubt, he is an engaging fellow. And I can't altogether disagree with him. He is today's "superstar" of science, the "great communicator" of the scientific materialist ideology. Cheering crowds fawn over him and adore him. And he draws some good morals from his science. From the cosmic view, he says, our Earth is one place. So how can we go to war against each other? First seen from space in 1968, our interest in preserving Earth was born. Neglect of science leads to people buying propaganda that global warming is a hoax, and we don't need to deal with it. He's right; no, it's not a hoax, and we do need to deal with it. Science gives us valuable info, and exploring the universe is fascinating.

Good so far. But honestly, I have to cringe a bit when he proclaims that "you don't have to believe in science; it's just the truth." And then he refers to "matter" and "physical laws" when it's clear that these are just as much "beliefs" as any Christian dogma. And the moral lesson is detracted from when he does not allow for spirit and soul, for the life and intelligence which moves us all, as if that were a separate province for belief and religion. Neil's "science" is as fundamentalist as Jerry Falwell's religion.

Scientists and science propagandists of Neil's stripe and persuasion honestly "believe" that their method of knowledge will supply all the answers regarding the mysteries of life and reality. If science of his kind doesn't know it now, it will know it someday, if it just sticks to the same methods; so says Neil and Co. And if new information comes, such as dark matter and dark energy, then they can just rig and adjust the formulas to account for the new situation, regardless of any evidence whatsoever.

What is this "matter" that he projects as some kind of ultimate reality? It's nothing more than the resistance to our sense of touch. And our senses themselves are just material objects too. How do we experience them? How can we assume our senses to be the only basis for valid facts, when they themselves are just objects too? How can we proclaim that nothing exists except what is known to our senses? That's assuming the basis for your "facts" before you start. Empirical knowledge relies only on what is already created, without accounting for how anything new can be created.

It occurs to me to point out that what we really experience when we touch what we call "matter," is force. If someone bumps up against me, (s)he is resisting the force within me, and if I bump up against someone else, I am resisting his or her force. Wood seems solid and strong because of the force that a living thing put into it. Every "material" object can hold itself together and resist force because of its own force within it. Matter is energy. And where does this energy come from? "Give us one free miracle, and we'll explain the rest." From the first cause discussed by Plato and Aristotle and the medieval Christian theologians; that's where. It is really everywhere, all the time. I call it God or Spirit; the Life Force.

"Matter" is a philosophical concept or belief assumed to be an accurate description without examination by most scientists. But it is a psychological experience, not a verifiable fact. No, science is not immune to beliefs.

In order to us to be moral, attention to science is needed, but also attention to ourselves and to the deeper aspects and mysteries of our being; by scientists as well as others. There are not two universes, but one. To know that one reality, all the various methods of knowledge need to be respected and used; not just one. To respect ourselves and other beings, we need to hold them sacred, not seen as matter that can just be used and knocked around. We need to see everything and everyone as expressions of that first cause, that source, which materialist ideology alone cannot define for us.

You need to publish your own dictionary, or perhaps invent a new language called "Eric-English" so that the words you use can really make sense.

Originally Posted by TnT

You need to publish your own dictionary, or perhaps invent a new language called "Eric-English" so that the words you use can really make sense.

I guess for you, I already write in Eric-English lol

What didn't make sense? Everything is stated straighforwardly, and in English.

You disagree with Einstein that matter is energy? Just curious....

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

... Everything is stated straighforwardly, and in English.

You disagree with Einstein that matter is energy? Just curious....

English? Yes, I suppose so, in some formal sense. All of your words are found in an English dictionary.

Disagree? No, I'm not smart enough. But the oversimplification that is represented by E = MC-squared seems straightforward. One might also write it as MC-squared = E. If I do that, does that mean that energy is matter? Does it make any difference which way I write the equation? Probably not.

Does it mean that the two are inter-related/interchangable on the quantitative basis that the equation suggests? Well, yes, probably so. It the equation elegant, even beautiful in its simplicity? Oh, yeah.

Originally Posted by TnT

English? Yes, I suppose so, in some formal sense. All of your words are found in an English dictionary.

Disagree? No, I'm not smart enough. But the oversimplification that is represented by E = MC-squared seems straightforward. One might also write it as MC-squared = E. If I do that, does that mean that energy is matter? Does it make any difference which way I write the equation? Probably not.

Does it mean that the two are inter-related/interchangable on the quantitative basis that the equation suggests? Well, yes, probably so. Is the equation elegant, even beautiful in its simplicity? Oh, yeah.

So, you get that. Great; my English is working.

How about the notion that matter is a sensation? Does that makes any sense at all to you? The sensation of resistance?