It is impossible to for a second party tell a first party that they have been unsuccessful in imagining something.
Looking at the last panel, I can say with certainty, that dude failed at the task.
It is inherently a counting problem because of how sight and color recognition functions.
It’s, again, no question of sight and color recognition but about imagination.
You’re still looking that the comic from a very wrong angle and say “it makes no sense”. Well, from my angle, it does.
It’s a thought experiment, reminds me of zen Buddhist koans. “What is the sound of one clapping hand?” or “What did your face look like before your parents were born?” don’t have an answer. You can tell me you know the answer and I can’t proof you wrong but that’s not the point. It’s about making people think. “Imagine a color you never saw” is the same. You can tell me you made it and maybe that would mean enlightenment for you but it’s beside the point. It’s a thought experiment obviously meant to have no answer (again, look at the last panel). The more you tell me that makes no sense and there is no answer, you’re proofing my point. The comic makes it explicit that there is no answer. You impose a very different meaning onto it that doesn’t lead to anything and say “the comic doesn’t lead to anything”.
It’s a thought experiment, reminds me of zen Buddhist koans. “What is the sound of one clapping hand?” or “What did your face look like before your parents were born?” don’t have an answer.
You can answer these questions. People just get anger when you do, because they want the question to be mystical rather than nonsensical. When they get silly-but-correct answers, it denudes the questions of their woo-woo faux-wisdom.
So you have to fall back on even vaguer and more imprecise language, to try and obscure the original badly worded riddle.
This might come as a surprise, but the whole comic is. If you read the first 3 panels as being historically accurate, I see where your confusion comes from.
Anyway, you have a very unimaginative and literal approach to all this and that’s just not the layer the comic communicates on. Maybe at least acknowledge that.
Anyway, you have a very unimaginative and literal approach to all this
The one thing I really dislike about lemmy in general is that there are sooo many people like this here.
No fun. No whimsy. All philosophical challenges are puzzles meant to be conquered by misinterpreting the point and then writing a 4-line python script. It’s linux people, man, I swear.
Looking at the last panel, I can say with certainty, that dude failed at the task.
It’s, again, no question of sight and color recognition but about imagination.
You’re still looking that the comic from a very wrong angle and say “it makes no sense”. Well, from my angle, it does.
It’s a thought experiment, reminds me of zen Buddhist koans. “What is the sound of one clapping hand?” or “What did your face look like before your parents were born?” don’t have an answer. You can tell me you know the answer and I can’t proof you wrong but that’s not the point. It’s about making people think. “Imagine a color you never saw” is the same. You can tell me you made it and maybe that would mean enlightenment for you but it’s beside the point. It’s a thought experiment obviously meant to have no answer (again, look at the last panel). The more you tell me that makes no sense and there is no answer, you’re proofing my point. The comic makes it explicit that there is no answer. You impose a very different meaning onto it that doesn’t lead to anything and say “the comic doesn’t lead to anything”.
The last panel is a fantasy by the artist.
You can answer these questions. People just get anger when you do, because they want the question to be mystical rather than nonsensical. When they get silly-but-correct answers, it denudes the questions of their woo-woo faux-wisdom.
So you have to fall back on even vaguer and more imprecise language, to try and obscure the original badly worded riddle.
This might come as a surprise, but the whole comic is. If you read the first 3 panels as being historically accurate, I see where your confusion comes from.
Anyway, you have a very unimaginative and literal approach to all this and that’s just not the layer the comic communicates on. Maybe at least acknowledge that.
The one thing I really dislike about lemmy in general is that there are sooo many people like this here.
No fun. No whimsy. All philosophical challenges are puzzles meant to be conquered by misinterpreting the point and then writing a 4-line python script. It’s linux people, man, I swear.
The first panel is a challenge by the author, which is real at least in so far as it’s a sentiment the author actually has.
The next two are filler.
The fourth is an invented response.