Page 12 of 19 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 186

Thread: COLOUR

  1. Top | #111
    Contributor ruby sparks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    6,923
    Rep Power
    17
    Ok so I will try to undermine my own claims about colour.

    Rather than use the analogy with pain, which may not be an equivalent phenomenon, I will use an analogy with something else, shape.

    While it is true that our perception of shape (and form) is a phenomenon that occurs in the brain, it seems much easier to say that shape and form also do exist in the outside world.

    If that is agreed, then it becomes a matter of whether colour (and/or sound, flavour or odour) are like shape and form, and not like, for example, pain, which appears to be only a brain sensation.

    I myself can't think of any way of deciding on that, but the analogy with perception of shape and form does seem to allow for the possibility, in principle, that colour does exist outside of brain sensations, at least inasmuch as shape and form do.

    Locke distinguished shape from colour by saying that the former is a primary property and the latter is a secondary one. Locke lived in the 1600's so I am not sure if we can rely on his taxonomies. But we can still ask what are the main differences between the two. One difference is that the former can be perceived in more than one way (we can see a shape and we can touch or handle it). Perhaps this adds some degree of reliability or verification to our saying shape exists outside our brains. This supporting evidence is not available for colour.
    Last edited by ruby sparks; 03-25-2020 at 01:24 PM.
    "Let us hope that it is not so. Or if it is, let us pray that the fact does not become generally known."

  2. Top | #112
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    12,132
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    30,345
    Rep Power
    57
    So. The rock can be moved. OK. Let's discuss your last paragraph.

    I disagree that color color does not exist outside our brains. Any object that has shape must have color since one can not distinguish through other than touch shape without the presence of light. Touch requires contact with presence of object for one to feel. Light also provides any observer in the physical world with the sense of sight cues about an object's existence beyond shape such as warmth and color. Color signals warmth at a distance in things that are seen as yellow, orange, red, white or blue. Certainly one would not need touching something or even be near enough to feel warmth to know it was harmful because it was hot. One cannot infer a depression in a shape from a distance without using one's sense of light and dark which is no more than using color. In no way are the above different from touching the object beyond the fact that one need not physically contact the object to sense them.

    I'm certainly not going to argue that contact sensing is real while remotes sensing is mental. Light provides cues to shape and utility through light-dark value and color value without requiring one to actually come in contact with the things sensed. At a distance is the only thing that keeps one from rationally presuming color is in the world. If it weren't would plants and animals differentiate in accordance with differences provided for sensing.

    Thanks for bending.

  3. Top | #113
    Veteran Member Treedbear's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    out on a limb
    Posts
    1,669
    Rep Power
    16
    I think that shape, like color, is also strongly based on perceived relationships as interpretted by the brain. What we call shape is an inferred property of objects. Sure there are material objects of matter that appear in the form of solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. But what it is we call shape is the mind's interpretation. Not a true fact but an abstraction. The only problem is that in order to describe something that abstraction is all we have.
    Last edited by Treedbear; 03-25-2020 at 09:30 PM.

  4. Top | #114
    Contributor ruby sparks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    6,923
    Rep Power
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post
    I disagree that color color does not exist outside our brains. Any object that has shape must have color since one can not distinguish through other than touch shape without the presence of light. Touch requires contact with presence of object for one to feel. Light also provides any observer in the physical world with the sense of sight cues about an object's existence beyond shape such as warmth and color. Color signals warmth at a distance in things that are seen as yellow, orange, red, white or blue. Certainly one would not need touching something or even be near enough to feel warmth to know it was harmful because it was hot. One cannot infer a depression in a shape from a distance without using one's sense of light and dark which is no more than using color. In no way are the above different from touching the object beyond the fact that one need not physically contact the object to sense them.

    I'm certainly not going to argue that contact sensing is real while remotes sensing is mental. Light provides cues to shape and utility through light-dark value and color value without requiring one to actually come in contact with the things sensed. At a distance is the only thing that keeps one from rationally presuming color is in the world. If it weren't would plants and animals differentiate in accordance with differences provided for sensing.
    You could be right. On the other hand, all of the above as regards visual perception can be fully explained without recourse to colour (and even light and dark) other than as a brain experience.

    Please appreciate that I am not trying to defeat the claim that colour exists outside our brains. All I am saying is (a) that my preferred model is that it is only a brain sensation, and not in the world outside, and (b) that this can fully account for everything about it. That does not mean that colour does not exist outside our brains. There is no point in us going loggerheads over who is right.
    Last edited by ruby sparks; 03-26-2020 at 04:16 AM.
    "Let us hope that it is not so. Or if it is, let us pray that the fact does not become generally known."

  5. Top | #115
    Contributor ruby sparks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    6,923
    Rep Power
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by Treedbear View Post
    I think that shape, like color, is also strongly based on perceived relationships as interpreted by the brain. What we call shape is an inferred property of objects. Sure there are material objects of matter that appear in the form of solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. But what it is we call shape is the mind's interpretation. Not a true fact but an abstraction. The only problem is that in order to describe something that abstraction is all we have.
    As I see it, it would be possible to say that everything, including shape, form, length, colour, pain, time, causality, etc etc etc is only a representation of what seems to be 'out there'. As such, yes, shape may not actually exist in the world. I have read of theories in physics for example that the universe is a 2D hologram. I'm not saying it is. Alternatively, the universe may be some sort of probabilistic quantum event. Or it may be information. I do think our conceptions of the world (by which I mean mine and those of most people) are still intuitively Newtonian, and as such possibly out of date.

    That said, I still think it would be harder to make the case that there are no such thing as walls, for example, even if we agree that they may not actually be coloured.

    And whatever the universe is, I would venture to say that our representations of it must be fairly accurate and reliable in a functional sense at least, or else we would not survive very long. Try driving what merely seems to be your car over what merely seems to be a cliff, for example, even in a 2D hologram universe, if that's what it is.
    "Let us hope that it is not so. Or if it is, let us pray that the fact does not become generally known."

  6. Top | #116
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    12,132
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    30,345
    Rep Power
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post

    You could be right. On the other hand, all of the above as regards visual perception can be fully explained without recourse to colour (and even light and dark) other than as a brain experience.

    Please appreciate that I am not trying to defeat the claim that colour exists outside our brains. All I am saying is (a) that my preferred model is that it is only a brain sensation, and not in the world outside, and (b) that this can fully account for everything about it. That does not mean that colour does not exist outside our brains. There is no point in us going loggerheads over who is right.
    All you have for your view is association with name.

    Obviously what we see, feel, hear, etc. is derived from physical energy interacting with our NS.

    It takes a leap to then, because names we conceive and apply to what we sense, that the sensations from which those names are derived must also be derived as mental sensations whole cloth.

    Mental sensation? How far are you going to parse to find something other than processing activity associated with transduction of environmental energy by the brain as reason for saying it's mental.

    We know that what falls upon our sensors is to close approximation the best these sensors can convert what they receive in to neural information which neurons thereafter processes. The fact is that perception most always is found to reflect physical presence and activity.

    Apparently you think that because the human comes up with verbal descriptions and names that what is being named are also not transduced statements of physical conditions. No they are purely mental creations of mind during consciousness.

    Couldn't resist.

  7. Top | #117
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    4,035
    Rep Power
    14
    Oy.

    Primary brute facts:
    1. Brains create/update/maintain/animate (at least one) ongoing “analogue” of the entire body, referred to as a “self” or “I.”
    2. Brains create models of the external world based upon information constantly bombarding and gathered by the body, which is ultimately nothing more than a highly complex sensory input/output device.
    3. Brains superimpose the animated analogues into these models in order to help them determine optimal, strategic navigations of the external world prior to acting within the external world.
    4. Selves are imbued with autonomy, but also directly experience autonomy due to the fact that they “move” (are placed) from “virtual” model of the external to variations of the model of the external ten trillion times per nano-second every nano-second, which they are not “told” are models or that they are external, as there is no need for the brain to imbue that information to the analogue/animated selves (and would actually contravene their purpose).
    5. Nothing the self—the “I” the “us” the “we”—experience is ever anything other than brain created (aka, “psychological”).
    6. All that means is that the “I” is illusory, but the body/brain is not.
    7. When the brain fails or malfunctions, the “self” likewise fails or malfunctions.

    End of mystery.
    .

  8. Top | #118
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    12,132
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    30,345
    Rep Power
    57
    ....and comes the "self" to the BS pile. An "explanation" in search of a reason for being supported by a construction that is actually composed of a conceit called "awareness" presumed to be "complete" another conceit. Nothing about human processing ever results in an internal "reconstruction" of the whole.

    Position tracking remains distinct from sensory and perceptual time unified processes. These remain distinct and callable from outcome models based on other sense models. Fields of association for some aspector another of this or that now experiences are set up which provide basis for other partial coordinating and/or referencing processes.

    A simple example would be a trade between perception of a click with information about what is going on over there as one orients toward the sound of a twig breaking and a growl being uttered by the wolf who stepped on the twig. Both are are needed to sort out localizing and determining threat response else one would be food all the time. Yet one only has one hearing system. Click receives priority for head turning while audible intelligence is required for threat determination. So rather than processing one and suppressing the other the processing of sensations are reordered so both can be processed as relevant to detection and threat assessment.

    One jumps from one process to another to stitch together an ongoing event covered by several out of synch sensory processing chains in a timely enough way to manage to cope. There isn't a single model of anything. There are several processes ultimately chained together to present, after the fact, after each process has done it's job, to latch on to as an impression of real time - actually after the fact - experience. We would never survive if complete models were operating theater.

  9. Top | #119
    Contributor ruby sparks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    6,923
    Rep Power
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post

    You could be right. On the other hand, all of the above as regards visual perception can be fully explained without recourse to colour (and even light and dark) other than as a brain experience.

    Please appreciate that I am not trying to defeat the claim that colour exists outside our brains. All I am saying is (a) that my preferred model is that it is only a brain sensation, and not in the world outside, and (b) that this can fully account for everything about it. That does not mean that colour does not exist outside our brains. There is no point in us going loggerheads over who is right.
    All you have for your view is association with name.

    Obviously what we see, feel, hear, etc. is derived from physical energy interacting with our NS.

    It takes a leap to then, because names we conceive and apply to what we sense, that the sensations from which those names are derived must also be derived as mental sensations whole cloth.

    Mental sensation? How far are you going to parse to find something other than processing activity associated with transduction of environmental energy by the brain as reason for saying it's mental.

    We know that what falls upon our sensors is to close approximation the best these sensors can convert what they receive in to neural information which neurons thereafter processes. The fact is that perception most always is found to reflect physical presence and activity.

    Apparently you think that because the human comes up with verbal descriptions and names that what is being named are also not transduced statements of physical conditions. No they are purely mental creations of mind during consciousness.

    Couldn't resist.
    I don't think I disagree with anything much you said there.

    We can easily agree that as you say, what falls upon our sensors is to close approximation the best these sensors can convert what they receive into neural information which neurons thereafter processes, and that perception most always is found to reflect physical presence and activity, and that brain sensations are (physical, material) transductions of environmental energy, or information (something physical, whatever it is) and so on and so forth. None of that is in dispute between us.

    But again, it doesn't seem to be addressing what I'm saying, and in some ways may even misrepresent it.

    For example, what I basically said in the particular post you replied to was that regardless of which of us is right and which is wrong (which I doubt we can decide for sure) objects or light of themselves being coloured is fully redundant to explanations. If you disagree about that statement specifically, please explain on what grounds you disagree with it.

    If you don't disagree, I would have thought that your generally reductionist approach (the thoroughness of which I very much admire) would lead you to want to weed out apparently superfluous considerations.

    And if you want to reply that you think I'm the one retaining superfluous considerations, not you, at least be sure that you aren't misattributing something to me, such as that I'm arguing against materiality or saying something about self, conscious guiding, agency, or consciousness generally, that I'm not actually saying.
    Last edited by ruby sparks; 03-26-2020 at 12:01 PM.
    "Let us hope that it is not so. Or if it is, let us pray that the fact does not become generally known."

  10. Top | #120
    Contributor ruby sparks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    6,923
    Rep Power
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    Oy.

    Primary brute facts:
    1. Brains create/update/maintain/animate (at least one) ongoing “analogue” of the entire body, referred to as a “self” or “I.”
    2. Brains create models of the external world based upon information constantly bombarding and gathered by the body, which is ultimately nothing more than a highly complex sensory input/output device.
    3. Brains superimpose the animated analogues into these models in order to help them determine optimal, strategic navigations of the external world prior to acting within the external world.
    4. Selves are imbued with autonomy, but also directly experience autonomy due to the fact that they “move” (are placed) from “virtual” model of the external to variations of the model of the external ten trillion times per nano-second every nano-second, which they are not “told” are models or that they are external, as there is no need for the brain to imbue that information to the analogue/animated selves (and would actually contravene their purpose).
    5. Nothing the self—the “I” the “us” the “we”—experience is ever anything other than brain created (aka, “psychological”).
    6. All that means is that the “I” is illusory, but the body/brain is not.
    7. When the brain fails or malfunctions, the “self” likewise fails or malfunctions.

    End of mystery.
    .
    Welcome to our little coronavirus-free cul-de-sac. I hope you are well. I'm very sorry to hear about you losing your job. Genuine sympathies. If it's any minor consolation, you're far, far from being alone. I'm self-employed in a currently non-essential occupation and seeing no money coming in or the prospect of it in the near future. But overall I'm very happy, because I can self-isolate very easily, haven't caught the little bastards yet, and can thus afford to waste time here on largely unimportant philosophical chinwags.

    The OP is not meant to go as far as to explain or describe self, or even consciousness in general. It's meant to be less ambitious and very specific. Primarily, it's about the location (or locations) of phenomena such as for example 'redness'. Are they in objects, in light, or only in brains?

    I myself quite strongly prefer the model in which 'redness' is only in the brain, but in the end, I am saying the issue is unresolved, and possibly unresolvable. At most all I can say is that the model I subscribe to seems to be a valid one because it has good explanatory power about colour (albeit it lacks a full explanation of 'what conscious sensations are').

    But it is possible that colours, as well as being brain sensations, are also 'out there' (in light for example) at least inasmuch as, say, objects such as walls, chairs, strawberries and mountains are (shapes and forms in other words). I am not ruling it out. The question there is whether colour is like those, or more like pain, which I would claim is not 'out there' in the stimuli that cause it in the brain. In fact the more I think about it, pain would have been a better example of the sort of phenomenon I am trying to explore vis-a-vis location. But colour is arguably more interesting, because it seems less resolved.

    I'm pretty much ruling out that colour is in objects (such as the ones I listed). I'm less convinced it's not in light, but I'm quite strongly inclined to think it isn't. I do claim that it being in light itself is fully redundant to explanations, which I feel at least somewhat weakens the case for it being so, even if only on grounds of parsimony. But, if I admit that I can't claim to understand or explain what conscious sensations are, I equally have to admit that I might not be understanding something about colour being in light itself.
    Last edited by ruby sparks; 03-26-2020 at 12:38 PM.
    "Let us hope that it is not so. Or if it is, let us pray that the fact does not become generally known."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •