Known Unknowables
aeon.co
aeon.co
If the blue I see is not the blue you see, it doesn't change the fact that we both agree that other things we see like that are also perceived as blue.
When this isn't true, that's when we discover certain things about our biology. Color-blindness, for example.
So the question of what are things like "independent of any human perception" is kind of a non-starter. They are almost always exactly like they are when being perceived. A tree falling in the forest does everything necessary to create sound. Whether it makes a sound or not depends on how you define sound. If you define it as the various vibrations in the air, then you could say it does. If you define it specifically as those vibrations being received by something capable of interpreting those vibrations, then it doesn't.
The only counterexample is the double slit experiment. However, at that level, our observation is no longer technically passive. So it is possible that our observation is the element that changes the behaviour of the particles.
One could try to solve this by using an independent measure of blueness with some kind of machine. However, that simply shifts the problem. The number you see on that machine could differ from the number you saw yesterday because of the same faulty visual perception.
I find this kind of uncertainty to be a real challenge with emotions. Am I judging someone more leniently than I was yesterday become of my emotions? Can I even judge my emotions properly in state of happiness?
It doesn't matter. We can only deal with the world as it presents itself currently.
You're dipping a bit into solipsism. "We can't be sure of anything external to ourselves." I love to slap people like that and then deny it until they can prove that it happened, using all of the solipsistic arguments to dismiss their claims.
You'll find people are really ready to dismiss solipsism in the face of being slapped in the face.
You are the only true judge of your emotions. If you think you're feeling something, you're feeling it. And yes, your emotions will color your actions. But that's irrelevant to whether or not something is blue.
____________
Related physics topics on known unknowable true state of the universe:
- https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger%27s_cat
- https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem
____________
Related, but not cited quote: “Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tends to be the difficult ones.”
source:
- https://wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_unknown_unknowns
____________
I'd argue it's an open question whether this is related, depending on which interpretation you prefer :)
[0] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17841838-the-outer-limit...
Say cognitive dissonance without saying it.
"But we might be tempted to say that the appearance of the majority is to be preferred: if the majority finds honey sweet, or finds hemlock poisonous, shouldn’t we just trust them? Sextus answers negatively. He argues that we cannot prefer the majority, because the perception of the majority of Greeks is often different from the perception of the majority of, say, the Persians. We must avoid making any judgments and withhold our assent. We must be sceptics."
Interesting argument regarding democracy and virtue being mutually exclusive. Societies often conflate quorum with moral authority.
It appears related to cognitive dissonance, but not quite the same.
Cognitive dissonance is when you hold simultaneously conflicting or contradictory feelings or opinions about something. For example, you might believe that you care about animal welfare, but simultaneously eat meat indiscriminately. Both of these things fulfill an inner need, but their combination gives rise to a level of discomfort.
The quotation refers to the wilful avoidance of doubt and complexity. The analogy here would be taking a position like "It is fine to eat animals because they obviously don't think or feel". This makes various presumptions about what thinking or feeling is, and the moral status of those concepts (or their negation), while dismissing the idea that this is up for debate. Again, this fulfills an inner need, but without the conflict and discomfort.
That precisely describes the typical conflict resolution process. We almost always take the path of least resistance.
Cognitive dissonance causes the behavior described.
It's a property of how logical systems work; there are no problems with math, I promise.