Things you often Wonder

[The_Rev]

But you would reach a point where enough people agree what "blue" is that it becomes blue. Society dictates the answer to the question, hence it being a philosophical one rather than a mathematical one, but you can define what blue is very very easily.

[OutByEaster?]

But you would reach a point where enough people agree what "blue" is that it becomes blue. Society dictates the answer to the question, hence it being a philosophical one rather than a mathematical one, but you can define what blue is very very easily.

Ah, I see. You're not arguing that people all see it the same way, you're arguing that by agreeing that the result is the same they render it so.

[TheDon]

But you would reach a point where enough people agree what "blue" is that it becomes blue. Society dictates the answer to the question, hence it being a philosophical one rather than a mathematical one, but you can define what blue is very very easily.

You can define what's blue, you can't however define what blue actually looks like other than on the personal level.

[The_Rev]

Ah, I see. You're not arguing that people all see it the same way, you're arguing that by agreeing that the result is the same they render it so.

Yes. It's like sanity*, society dictates what something is and that is what it becomes. It is clearly not a mathematical question with an absolutely correct answer, but the overwhelming majority of people would agree that Chelsea play in blue shirts and that they are roughly the same colour as the dark part of the Scottish flag.

As an aside, what colour is claret? Is it dark red or light purple? I'm saying dark red.

*what if I am the only sane one and everybody else is nuts? its also a bollocks question because society dictates what sanity is and if you dont fit that then you are classed as insane.

[OutByEaster?]

Ah, I see. You're not arguing that people all see it the same way, you're arguing that by agreeing that the result is the same they render it so.

Yes. It's like sanity*, society dictates what something is and that is what it becomes. It is clearly not a mathematical question with an absolutely correct answer, but the overwhelming majority of people would agree that Chelsea play in blue shirts and that they are roughly the same colour as the dark part of the Scottish flag.

As an aside, what colour is claret? Is it dark red or light purple? I'm saying dark red.

*what if I am the only sane one and everybody else is nuts? its also a bollocks question because society dictates what sanity is and if you dont fit that then you are classed as insane.

Sanity is a question of proportion - throughout our societal history, we've always had roughly the same proportion of people declared insane - we've just changed the definition of what's needed to qualify.

You've applied a sort of physics answer to the philosophic question on colour, asking not to what extent do we define our individual universes and to what extent they define us and asking instead how much information do I need to point at this apple and say green.

[The_Rev]

Too the loony bin with you!

[OutByEaster?]

Green.

[tonyh29]

Cats only meow in order to communicate with humans, they rarely (if ever) meow to each other.

I thought it was purring that they only did for our benefit ?

my friends cats used to chatter to each other when they saw a bird in the garden , was a weird sound sort of like clearing your throat

[gee1971]

instead of throwing dead bodies into a canal i.e coronation street, what would be the perfect way to dispose of a dead boby so no trace of it was left over.not that i intend to use anyof the ideas officer lol

[Stevo985]

I'm still not convinced with the Rev's answer

[TheDon]

instead of throwing dead bodies into a canal i.e coronation street, what would be the perfect way to dispose of a dead boby so no trace of it was left over.not that i intend to use anyof the ideas officer lol

Sodium hydroxide + water.

It'll reduce all the tissue to a liquid, leaving just brittle bones which can then be crumbled easily.

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

On the colour debate, I think we see the same colours, simply because if you were having a debate with someone.....how many times do you get a

"Blue is a bit light though" (as if they are seeing say lighter red/green)

...

"what you onnabout, that's nearly black...."

suddenly, things like the sun/sky become different colours to people, so darkness/lightness ..

sky goes black ...if you put us all in a pitch black room ....none of us could see, but surely if people see different colours, you'd get people walking in life who could easily walk through a black night clearly.

?

[TheDon]

No because black isn't actually a colour. It's the absence of light.

If there's no light there's no light, you can't see in it.

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

No because black isn't actually a colour. It's the absence of light.

If there's no light there's no light, you can't see in it.

Oh ...the rest still applies.

if you asked someone to pick out the darkest colour (if colouring) it's always going to be black ...which if people saw different colours, wouldn't be the case ...

[TheDon]

It's always going to be black due to the nature of black, black absorbs all light. Without it reflecting light you're just left with dark. You can't get any darker than dark.

The one certainty is that black is black due to it's unique physical position of being a light eater.

The whole idea of people seeing different colours comes from the idea people could have different sensitivities to different parts of the light spectrum, when there's no light being reflected off something that doesn't matter.

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

It's always going to be black due to the nature of black, black absorbs all light. Without it reflecting light you're just left with dark. You can't get any darker than dark.

The one certainty is that black is black due to it's unique physical position of being a light eater.

The whole idea of people seeing different colours comes from the idea people could have different sensitivities to different parts of the light spectrum, when there's no light being reflected off something that doesn't matter.

I see, okay black is a truely terrible example but the example generally still stands.....swap brown for a lighter colour etc...

basically, take black out of any arguement ...just the other points.

[mjmooney]

The one certainty is that black is black

[Voinjama]

Said it before on here, how can some people find certain people beautiful. Okay we all have different opinions but like you never see a 10/10 looks with someone who you believe is a 3/10 looks. (well unless the 3/10 has like 100 million ...)

I mean, I have a 'standard' that I wouldn't go below, I'd rather go single than be with some people. While I'm sure someone who is really good looking standards would be higher than mine. I don't believe people just 'settle' with people because they can't get the most beautiful girls, because obviously that's not the case. Everyone see's beauty in someone else but I just don't get how. It's as if everyone has a standard 'box' ..

i.e. if someone is a 10/10 ...then they are more attracted to 10/10's ...but a 8/9 could get into their plans if they have a great personality and other factors etc...

while if you're a 5/10 ...then again, you won't see a 5/10 with anyone who's less/more than a 4 or 6.

anyone see what I'm getting at or is this all gibberish?

It is beautiful that everyone can find beautiful but I don't get how.

I have also wondered about this too. But the way you have worded it makes it confusing but I think I can see what you mean.

I think this deserves a new topic of its own. I know how you like to keep your word post high, so I will let you do the honours.

[mjmooney]

Said it before on here, how can some people find certain people beautiful. Okay we all have different opinions but like you never see a 10/10 looks with someone who you believe is a 3/10 looks. (well unless the 3/10 has like 100 million ...)

I mean, I have a 'standard' that I wouldn't go below, I'd rather go single than be with some people. While I'm sure someone who is really good looking standards would be higher than mine. I don't believe people just 'settle' with people because they can't get the most beautiful girls, because obviously that's not the case. Everyone see's beauty in someone else but I just don't get how. It's as if everyone has a standard 'box' ..

i.e. if someone is a 10/10 ...then they are more attracted to 10/10's ...but a 8/9 could get into their plans if they have a great personality and other factors etc...

while if you're a 5/10 ...then again, you won't see a 5/10 with anyone who's less/more than a 4 or 6.

anyone see what I'm getting at or is this all gibberish?

It is beautiful that everyone can find beautiful but I don't get how.

I have also wondered about this too. But the way you have worded it makes it confusing but I think I can see what you mean.

I think this deserves a new topic of its own. I know how you like to keep your word post high, so I will let you do the honours.

Quickies aside, anybody who values looks above personality for a long term relationship is an utter idiot, and asking for trouble.

Sure, on first meeting, looks are a powerful attractant, but once you go beyond that, if you don't actually like someone, they start to look less attractive anyway. And if you DO like them, you start to see them as more attractive in a physical sense.

But I agree that people of broadly similar levels of conventional "beauty" do tend to end up together. Of course, you do get the occasional "ugly man-beautiful woman" combo (especially if the man is rich and/or powerful), but rarely do you see a handsome man with an ugly woman.

Which, from a genetic point of view, is why we still see a very wide range of different looks in the population, rather than it "averaging out". Beautiful people breed for beauty, ugly people breed for ugliness.

But I still stand by my initial premise - using looks as your main selection criterion is a very bad idea.

[Voinjama]

Said it before on here, how can some people find certain people beautiful. Okay we all have different opinions but like you never see a 10/10 looks with someone who you believe is a 3/10 looks. (well unless the 3/10 has like 100 million ...)

I mean, I have a 'standard' that I wouldn't go below, I'd rather go single than be with some people. While I'm sure someone who is really good looking standards would be higher than mine. I don't believe people just 'settle' with people because they can't get the most beautiful girls, because obviously that's not the case. Everyone see's beauty in someone else but I just don't get how. It's as if everyone has a standard 'box' ..

i.e. if someone is a 10/10 ...then they are more attracted to 10/10's ...but a 8/9 could get into their plans if they have a great personality and other factors etc...

while if you're a 5/10 ...then again, you won't see a 5/10 with anyone who's less/more than a 4 or 6.

anyone see what I'm getting at or is this all gibberish?

It is beautiful that everyone can find beautiful but I don't get how.

I have also wondered about this too. But the way you have worded it makes it confusing but I think I can see what you mean.

I think this deserves a new topic of its own. I know how you like to keep your word post high, so I will let you do the honours.

Quickies aside, anybody who values looks above personality for a long term relationship is an utter idiot, and asking for trouble.

Sure, on first meeting, looks are a powerful attractant, but once you go beyond that, if you don't actually like someone, they start to look less attractive anyway. And if you DO like them, you start to see them as more attractive in a physical sense.

But I agree that people of broadly similar levels of conventional "beauty" do tend to end up together. Of course, you do get the occasional "ugly man-beautiful woman" combo (especially if the man is rich and/or powerful), but rarely do you see a handsome man with an ugly woman.

Which, from a genetic point of view, is why we still see a very wide range of different looks in the population, rather than it "averaging out". Beautiful people breed for beauty, ugly people breed for ugliness.

But I still stand by my initial premise - using looks as your main selection criterion is a very bad idea.

Interesting points made, but its completely natural going back to the caveman days to base your potential mate on looks. The simple fact is, my wood doesn't get hard if I'm not attracted to the girl. For me it has to be looks and personality at an equal level.