Page 71 of 79 FirstFirst ... 21616970717273 ... LastLast
Results 701 to 710 of 786

Thread: COLOUR

  1. Top | #701
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguous states westernmost - IOW here
    Posts
    14,118
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    32,331
    Rep Power
    63
    You aren't even trying now untermensche. It isn't a special property called color. Just like part of the spectrum is called ultraviolet and far infrared, which are outside the range of humans and most other living living things here on earth it's called visible spectrum and why not? There's radio wave, FM wave, long range radar wave, tracking radar wave. X ray, and microwave, which we we all accept as are part of the overall energy spectrum. It's not special at all. You say so because it fits into your man controls her mind notion.

    Now if it were like 'subjective' which is pure fiction cover for "I think therefore ..." as a cover for sounding scientific, but is actually a placeholder for obvious indefinable speculative assertions, that would be magic.

  2. Top | #702
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    22,361
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    38,914
    Rep Power
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post
    You aren't even trying now untermensche. It isn't a special property called color. Just like part of the spectrum is called ultraviolet and far infrared, which are outside the range of humans and most other living living things here on earth it's called visible spectrum and why not? There's radio wave, FM wave, long range radar wave, tracking radar wave. X ray, and microwave, which we we all accept as are part of the overall energy spectrum. It's not special at all. You say so because it fits into your man controls her mind notion.

    Now if it were like 'subjective' which is pure fiction cover for "I think therefore ..." as a cover for sounding scientific, but is actually a placeholder for obvious indefinable speculative assertions, that would be magic.
    Your anthropocentric nonsense is not convincing.

    You think a small part of the EM spectrum has secret information about color in it merely because humans create color from the stimulation. It is a silly blindness, nothing more. Like thinking the earth is flat because that is what it appears like.

    Science must deal with "reality". Not hide from it.

    And reality is: I think therefore I exist. I experience therefore both I and experience exist.

    You have no magic information or any argument that makes this not true.

  3. Top | #703
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguous states westernmost - IOW here
    Posts
    14,118
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    32,331
    Rep Power
    63
    -nm

  4. Top | #704
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    22,361
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    38,914
    Rep Power
    79
    A thought experiment for the open minded.

    Imagine there is no color information in EM energy. Imagine there is only variation that can be detected.

    Is it possible for an evolving brain to create an experience of color from this colorless information?

  5. Top | #705
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Land of Smiles
    Posts
    990
    Rep Power
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Swammerdami View Post
    Eavesdropping on this debate, I usually take fromderside's side, but I'm afraid some of his posts also resemble extremist caricatures.
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post
    !. The subjective mind is scientifically (materially) meaningless in itself, ergo so is experience. It is only used because we do not yet understand the relations between brain and environment. Something that is a place holder is not a thing....

    Over the past 50 years we've pretty much put the concept of consciousness to rest as an illusion. We now pretty much dismiss humans acting on the world....
    Who is "we"? I do not think it includes ALL the people who call themselves scientists.
    Perhaps I should obviate a round of rejoinders by quoting from a book by Paul Davies, available on-line.
    Consciousness is the number-one problem of science, of existence even. Most scientists just steer clear of it, thinking it too much of a quagmire.
    ...
    Among life’s many baffling properties, the phenomenon of consciousness leaps out as especially striking. Its origin is arguably the hardest problem facing science today and the only one that remains almost impenetrable even after two and a half millennia of deliberation. If Schrödinger’s question ‘What is life?’ has proved hard enough to answer, ‘What is mind?’ is an even tougher nut to crack.
    ...
    A new twist in the relationship between quantum fuzziness and human consciousness was introduced about thirty years ago by the Oxford mathematician Roger Penrose. ... [H]e claims that some microtubules threading through the interior of neurons might process information quantum mechanically, thus greatly boosting the processing power of the neural system and, somehow, generating consciousness on the way.
    ...
    Not everyone agrees, however, that cracking the information architecture problem will ‘explain’ consciousness, even if one buys into the thesis that conscious experiences are all about information patterns in the brain. David Chalmers, an Australian philosopher at New York University, divides the topic into ‘the easy problem’ and ‘the hard problem’. The easy part – very far from easy in practice – is to map the neural correlates of this or that experience, that is, determine which bit of the brain ‘lights up’ when the subject sees this or hears that. It’s a doable programme. But knowing all the correlates still wouldn’t tell us ‘what it is like’ to have this or that experience. I’m referring to the inner subjective aspect – the redness of red, for example –what philosophers call ‘qualia’. Some people think the hard problem of qualia can never be settled, partly for the same reason that I can’t be sure that you exist just because you behave more or less like I do. If so, the question ‘What is mind?’ will lie forever beyond our ken.
    I think Penrose, Davies and Chalmers qualify as "scientists."

  6. Top | #706
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    22,361
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    38,914
    Rep Power
    79
    Anyone honestly trying to understand the fact that human consciousnesses is that which experiences things is a scientist.

  7. Top | #707
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    22,361
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    38,914
    Rep Power
    79
    A brain may be stimulated by something, react to something, process something, construct something.

    But only consciousness experiences anything.

  8. Top | #708
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguous states westernmost - IOW here
    Posts
    14,118
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    32,331
    Rep Power
    63
    (stuffed in here to make the task of responding easier for myself)

    Quote Originally Posted by Swammerdami View Post

    Who is "we"? I do not think it includes ALL the people who call themselves scientists.
    Swammerdami if one follows the discussion on consciousness one finds whether it is science or philosophical mumbo jumbo hinges on whether conscious acts on or is respondent. Whatever it is is pretty much certain from recent MRI studies determined to be respondent.

    ... In this sense my statement of 'probably settled' that whatever consciousness is respondent. Consciousness is still treated as caused by scientists, thus consciousness is a place holder since we don't yet know it's characteristics in detail even by scientists such as Crick, Penrose et. cetera.

    Perhaps I should obviate a round of rejoinders by quoting from a book by Paul Davies, available on-line.
    Consciousness is the number-one problem of science, of existence even. Most scientists just steer clear of it, thinking it too much of a quagmire.
    ...
    Among life’s many baffling properties, the phenomenon of consciousness leaps out as especially striking. Its origin is arguably the hardest problem facing science today and the only one that remains almost impenetrable even after two and a half millennia of deliberation. If Schrödinger’s question ‘What is life?’ has proved hard enough to answer, ‘What is mind?’ is an even tougher nut to crack.
    ...
    A new twist in the relationship between quantum fuzziness and human consciousness was introduced about thirty years ago by the Oxford mathematician Roger Penrose. ... [H]e claims that some microtubules threading through the interior of neurons might process information quantum mechanically, thus greatly boosting the processing power of the neural system and, somehow, generating consciousness on the way.
    ...
    Not everyone agrees, however, that cracking the information architecture problem will ‘explain’ consciousness, even if one buys into the thesis that conscious experiences are all about information patterns in the brain. David Chalmers, an Australian philosopher at New York University, divides the topic into ‘the easy problem’ and ‘the hard problem’. The easy part – very far from easy in practice – is to map the neural correlates of this or that experience, that is, determine which bit of the brain ‘lights up’ when the subject sees this or hears that. It’s a doable programme. But knowing all the correlates still wouldn’t tell us ‘what it is like’ to have this or that experience. I’m referring to the inner subjective aspect – the redness of red, for example –what philosophers call ‘qualia’. Some people think the hard problem of qualia can never be settled, partly for the same reason that I can’t be sure that you exist just because you behave more or less like I do. If so, the question ‘What is mind?’ will lie forever beyond our ken.
    I think Penrose, Davies and Chalmers qualify as "scientists."
    Indeed. However notice that they constrain themselves to finding material explanations rather than attributing causal capabilities. It is pretty awesome that humans and other beings are aware of themselves and what is about them even in a historical sense.

    Thanks for your post.

  9. Top | #709
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    5,095
    Archived
    6,261
    Total Posts
    11,356
    Rep Power
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayjay View Post
    Because according to you, color is not something that exists in the world. So why should filtering out some of the wavelengths of light that hit his eyes cause any particular experience in his brain?
    The brain is getting a different neural signal from the eye. Therefore it is making a different experience.

    The person has all the mechanisms in the brain to create red. But they never got the proper signal from the eye to cause the brain to create red.

    They are experiencing red for the first time. That makes grown men cry.
    No, you are still confused. The person has the necessary cone cells in his retina to see red (or "create red" as you would confuse it). He has seen red before, and his brain is perfectly capable of experiencing red. The problem with that type of color blindness is that the two types of cones that are sensitive to red and green wavelengths are closer than normal to each other: hence they have a harder time distinguishing these two colors than the average person. But not impossible.

    A person crying is not evidence that he is experiencing something new. I can show you videos of people speaking in tongues or doing other emotional shit because they think they are being touched by God, but it's not proof that God exists.


    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    The glasses change the neural signal the brain is getting from the eye.

    And when the brain gets a different signal it creates a different experience. Color is not the signal. It is not the stimulus on the eye. It is the experience.
    The glasses change the color of light that passes through them, and consequently hit the person's eyes. And that's where the signal comes from: different color causes the cone cells in the retina to fire differently, which results in different signal being sent to the brain, which results in a different experience. The signal is not the color, but color information is encoded in the signal. How the brain experiences this is up to the brain, but that's not the color either. It's just an experience of the color.

    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    Our experience of shape is an experience. But it is an experience of something in the world.
    Just like color. But the experience of color is not the color itself, just like experience of shape is not the shape.
    Absolutely not.

    The shape can be tested.
    Color can be tested too. Any digital camera can do it. With specialized detectors you can even get more color information out of the light than a human eye. Some animals (and very rarely some humans) have four kinds of cones in their eyes, and they can see more colors than you or I. But with technological aides I can objectively and reliably detect and measure exactly the same color information without having to resort to subjective experience.

    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    If you bump into the object but don't want to you are not experiencing the shape correctly. The object is there.

    If you fall over the cliff you did not see the shape of the cliff correctly.

    The animals that don't make a good representation of shape will not survive as well as the animals that do. The experience of shape is self correcting. It gets better and better because the better you approximate shape in your experience the better you survive.

    There is no way for an animal to approximate the proper color. There is no such thing as the proper color. Color is arbitrary.

    In terms of mammals and apes like humans it is good for survival if the skins of fruit are vivid colors like red or yellow. Therefore the animals who by chance makes yellow out of the light reflected off bananas will survive better than the animals that makes grey out of that light.
    So you agree with me: there is objective information in light reflected from bananas that our eyes can detect. This information is called "color".

    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    Just like color. Traffic lights would not be very effective if people could interpret "red" and "green" in ways not corresponding to the actual color of the light.
    That just shows that the same species makes the same experience of color when exposed to the same colorless energy.

    The fact that humans share the same experience of color is due to their genetic proximity.

    It is not evidence in any way that color is out there. What is out there is energy that has no color.
    You can play these word games with shape of weight as well. We have "the same experience of shape" when exposed to the same shapeless objects. Or that our brains "create weight" when exposed to the same weightless masses. But that's just semantic gobbledygook. You might as well say that the things have shapes and weights. And color.

    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    Color is not a property of the objects that reflect color, it's a property of light.
    Anthropocentric nonsense.

    "Light" is simply the small part of the spectrum that excites the human eye. "Light" is an anthropocentric concept based on human experience with energy.

    You think that the arbitrary manner in which humans experience energy is some universal. That is anthropocentric nonsense.

    There is no way for a brain to know which color it is supposed to present to consciousness based on the frequency of energy. The colors created are the colors that helped with survival the best. They have nothing to do with the world and everything to do with evolving organisms trying to survive.
    There is nothing in my definition of color that is human-centric: color is a distribution of wavelengths of light. Only thing that you could argue about there is that "light" seems to imply a particular band of electromagnetic spectrum, but you might as well extend it to infrared and ultraviolet, or the entire spectrum if you will. But we are talking about bands that living organisms are able to sense through their eye-like organs, which typically rules out radio and X-rays.

    The colors that we can see are only a subset. A tetrachromat can distinguish colors that look the same to us regular folks, just like we can distinguish mixtures of red and green that look the same to a color blind person. But an inability to see a color doesn't mean the color doesn't exist.

  10. Top | #710
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    5,095
    Archived
    6,261
    Total Posts
    11,356
    Rep Power
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    A thought experiment for the open minded.

    Imagine there is no color information in EM energy. Imagine there is only variation that can be detected.

    Is it possible for an evolving brain to create an experience of color from this colorless information?
    What does that even mean? That all EM energy has just one, fixed wavelength? Or that EM radiation can have different wavelengths, but never at the same time?

Posting Permissions

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