Strange

That's an interesting example. Although the difference is in whether the eyes respond to the light of that colour or not. A contrasting example is people with synesthaesia who see numbers as different colours - they are measurably quick at finding a particular number from a crowded page of numbers because the different colour makes it stand out. But that colour is entirely generated in the brain, not from the eye.

Can you give some examples?

I haven't said you were wrong. You started out with an interesting, and reasonably well-argued, point about the nature of vision, the role of the brain in constructing our view of reality and so on. But then you degenerated into name calling and just insisting you are Right, the Bringer of Truth, and that everyone who had another point of view was just wrong. So you seem to be the one who is unwilling to listen. "No you are wrong, you need the learn My Truth" is not a rational argument.

And your evidence for this is ...?

Not accepting something just because you (All Hail The Great & Wise Furyan) insist it is The Truth is not necessarily the same as ignorance. But as you have abandoned rational argument, I will leave you to it.

I think you have just crossed the line from "potentially interesting philosophical discussion" to "full on crackpot". You took your first steps with the misuse of "logic". Perhaps you need to define what you mean by "truth" (a major problem in philosophy, as I'm sure you know - although less sure than I was a day ago). You seem to be using it to mean your own beliefs. Join the Church of Furyan or suffer the consequences? I don't think that dismissing the rational arguments of highly respected philosophers as "hogwash" is very helpful. And, yes, I do "buy it" because the cogito ergo sum argument seemed flawed to me when I first heard it as a child and I am pleased to find good explanations of why it is flawed. You are resorting to straw man arguments. He didn't say it was a "lack of perception", he said it was a "lack of colour". If you can't even argue honestly against the points other make, then there isn't much hope for this thread.

That is one of the rules of logic, but not very useful by itself. That could only become illogical if you stated the premises and showed that conclusion cannot be derived from them. You sound as if you are saying "that doesn't make sense to me" which is not the correct use of "logical" (in a philosophy forum). However, your statement "something smaller than an electron" is meaningless as electrons are zero-sized.

So you imagined a difference between something you can't explain and something else you can't explain? Why should anyone take such nonsense seriously? On the other hand, mathematics shows us that there are an infinite number of real numbers between 0 and 1 and between 1 and 2. These infinities are the same "size" (but larger than the infinite number of integers). That isn't true. (So I would be cautious about everything else in that book).

With noises and other things that disturb sleep, your brain tries to incorporate them into your dream. So you might have a dream about a car alarm and then wake up and realise it is your alarm clock going off. Because the brain invents the concept of "now" it is even able to put you in a situation with cars before the car alarm goes off. So, one possibility is that for some reason your bra rubbed or caused a scratch (pressure from the way you were sleeping? some grit trapped under it? who knows). Maybe, in your sleep you rubbed it an made it worse. Anyway, at some point your brain incorporated the pain into your dream and then you woke up.

That is a very silly argument.

Yes. A lot of people use it as a synonym for common sense or things that are intuitively obvious. I would assume / hope that you know what logic is as you have used a few terms from philosophy. You understand, presumably, that it is a formal system for reaching conclusions based on premises, and that those conclusion must be true if the premises are.

Do you mean that you expect that you can look at the genome and see the hand coded there? If so that is a futile wish. You can't see all the complex structures in the Game of Life encoded in the rules. There is no "plan" of the sort you are looking for, any more than there is a plan for the structure of a snowflake or the shape and function of a protein. This is largely understood. Both in principle and many of the details. But there are, of course, a lot of unknowns. (This is science, after all.) It is not a simple question at all. At one level the details of genetic instructions are completely understood: triplets of bases code for amino acids. Sequences of these code for proteins. There are several ways in which particular genes can be turned on or off. Some of these are controlled by other genes - either in the same cell or other cells in the body, via chemical signalling. In some cases, the control mechanisms are understood almost completely. In other cases, hardly at all. So it isn't a question to which there is a yes or no answer. But I think most people with any understanding of the subject would say that overall, it is closer to "yes" than "no".

Earlier you were talking about "the 4%" of the universe that is visible. I assumed this meant all the stuff that isn't dark matter/energy (you didn't clarify this when I mentioned it, so I'm still not sure). But if you are going to put air, and other gases, into the invisible category, then I would guess that about 99% of the universe is not visible. (And, of course, air can be visible under certain circumstance.)

See, semantics. You really need to do a much better job of defining your terms.

Why do you ask? I'm not sure I stated any such assumption. Or that we don't yet fully understand the brain. And how much of this work has been published in peer reviewed journals? The scientific method is designed to eliminate the sort of biases that humans (including scientists) are prone to. And, in the long run, it works very well.

Firstly, I said there ISN'T a gene or genes that specify that explicitly. But I will answer the question as soon as you can tell me which of these four rules describe a puffer-type breeder that leaves glider guns in its wake, which in turn create gliders (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Conways_game_of_life_breeder_animation.gif): Any live cell with fewer than two live neighbours dies, as if caused by underpopulation. Any live cell with two or three live neighbours lives on to the next generation. Any live cell with more than three live neighbours dies, as if by overpopulation. Any dead cell with exactly three live neighbours becomes a live cell, as if by reproduction. Is that rule 1? Or maybe rule 3? Or all of them? Or none of them? Oh, it's all so confusing! Why can't the universe be simpler and just have explicit architectural plans for everything that happens. Or maybe we just have to accept that unexpected complexity can arise from the interaction of simple rules. But just imagine what could emerge if there were thousands of such rules and they were all very complex in what they did and the many subtle ways they interacted...

Did I say I had any? God knows. It was decades ago. [edit: just noticed that wasn't aimed at me; but the answer stands] Methodology? Oh, the irony. It isn't about contradicting some "worldview". It is the fact that science is based on repeatable and replicatable evidence. Sheldrake's ... ummmm ... "ideas" are based on largely anecdotal evidence heavily influenced by selection and confirmation biases.

In the genes. Of course it doesn't. The shape of a salt crystal or a snow flake is implicit in the laws of physics. But maybe you think an intelligence creates each one.

I have learned a new word, today. Thanks. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/divagate

The "we weren't there" thing is a pretty typical anti-science argument (similar to "if you can't reproduce it in a lab, it isn't science") used by creationists, people who oppose the Big Bang model, and many others.

Maybe. Or maybe not. You won't know until you try. Or maybe he is looking for his cat. Or looking at the stars. Or .. who knows what. Without any evidence, the misdemeanour is in your head. Have you tried to talk to them? Do they have a gun? Are they robbing you? So, no, it isn't the least bit similar.

I have just cancelled my landline. I don't know anything about WhatsApp but with Skype you can pay to make calls to landlines. Which makes sense: someone has to pay for the phone call. So, technically, WhatsApp could allow people to make (charged) calls to landlines but presumably they don't see it as relevant to their business model.

Or going out and asking him what he is doing.

I didn't say you were using it to prove god exists (that was Descartes' purpose). However, the logic is seriously flawed and cannot be used to prove you exist. (The Wikipedia page has a reasonable summary of some of the main problems with Descartes' argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum#Critique) Then I guess you haven't thought about it very much.

We do have some evidence of evolution in modern man. For example, the ability to drink milk as an adult has evolved (multiple times, in different ways) in about the last 10,000 years. Apes.