Page 10 of 13 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 127

Thread: Objective/Subjective

  1. Top | #91
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    24,392
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    40,945
    Rep Power
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post
    Denial is not repudiation nor proof of anything.

    To wit:
    The light does not interact with any cell. It interacts with a cis retinal molecule in the cell.
    Melanopsin

    What is the mechanisms for the experience of color?

    Woo Woo. untemensche's hands wave furiously
    The topic is the experience of color.

    Not something else.

    If you want me to research something else and explain it to you that is just changing the topic.

    You want to claim the movement of nitrogen atoms somehow tells the nervous system about the energy that caused it.

    Your position is a silly miracle any child should be able to see past. Especially when it has been explained to them in detail.

  2. Top | #92
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    24,392
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    40,945
    Rep Power
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post

    Falling trees don't make sounds.

    If there is nothing there with a brain that converts vibrating air to the experience of sound then there is no sound.



    Sound is an experience and nothing else. It is not a definition.



    The stimulus that causes evolved brains to create the experience of sound is understood.

    The stimulus is not sound.



    I just showed you above and there is no detection of color. There is the creation of the experience of color.

    The light does not interact with any cell. It interacts with a cis retinal molecule in the cell.
    You say poTAHto I say poTAYto...semantics.

    I think the experience of color is due to phlogiston in the cells.

    Now I get where you are AT.

    I see your point on the falling tree, but how do you know if the light goes out when you close the refrigerator door?

    If a lamp is on and there is no one around to see it, is there light radiating from the lamp?
    You have made no valid point or addressed a thing I said.

    You don't comprehend the difference between vibrating air and the experience of sound. (Hint: An evolved brain separates the two.)

    Join the modern club.

  3. Top | #93
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    7,347
    Rep Power
    23
    The OP is subjective vs objective.

    Colors arbitrary associations wit visual inputs to our brain.

    We 'detect' color in that our eyes and brains can discriminate between wavelengths of visible light, ie colors.

    Try thinking wavelength instead of color.

    What is the perception and experience of color? Can you elaborate?

    'Perception' of color is being aware of the color you are seeing. I perceive red or blue or purple. There is no subjectivity it is there and you see it. Just like seeing a rock. We see it and our brains match something to the image. It is all brain processing.

    I have addressed what you are talking about. How colors make you feel may be more in the realm of aesthetics along with art and music.

    Color perception of a painting is objective, we see colors as they are. How a painting using colors makes you feel is aesthetics.

    BTW Jackson Pollock's paintings make me feel like barfing. I have no clue what his aesthetic appeal is.

  4. Top | #94
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    24,392
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    40,945
    Rep Power
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    The OP is subjective vs objective.
    True but the topic of color has run over into this because some claim color is something objective.

    There is a general misunderstanding of what color is. Even within so-called scientists.

    Colors arbitrary associations wit visual inputs to our brain.
    I can't decipher this.

    There is an association between certain stimuli and the experience of color.

    We 'detect' color in that our eyes and brains can discriminate between wavelengths of visible light, ie colors.
    We don't detect color.

    We experience color. There is no color out there to detect.

    The things you experience have color, not the external world.

    Try thinking wavelength instead of color.
    We don't experience wavelength.

    The nervous system does not know why cis retinal transformed to trans retinal. The nervous system does not know the stimulus. That is something humans have discovered.

    What is the perception and experience of color? Can you elaborate?
    Nobody has the slightest idea what a subjective experience is.

    All we know is color is an experience and nothing else. It is not part of the external world. It is part of the internal subjective world.

    'Perception' of color is being aware of the color you are seeing.
    It is being aware of the color you are experiencing.

    "Seeing" is a subjective experience.

    I perceive red or blue or purple.
    You have labels you associate with your experiences. But your experience of red is only assumed to be similar to my experience of red due to our evolutionary proximity. Nobody besides you can know what you are experiencing.

    There is no subjectivity it is there and you see it.
    It is an experience and experiences are subjective. They are invisible to everyone except the person having the experience.

    Just like seeing a rock. We see it and our brains match something to the image. It is all brain processing.
    Energy reflecting off the rock is a stimulus for the brain to create the experience of the rock.

    The rock and the experience of the rock are two separate things. The rock has no color. Only the experience has color. Experiences are colorful. That is a product of evolution.

    I have addressed what you are talking about.
    Not really. You have many misconceptions.

    What we call "seeing" is having a subjective experience.

  5. Top | #95
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    7,347
    Rep Power
    23
    I can't decipher this.
    That is the problem. No physics ib your reasoning.

    If you think empirical science is subjective then there is nothing more to discuss. Light detection by the eye and brain is physics not metaphysics.

  6. Top | #96
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    24,392
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    40,945
    Rep Power
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    I can't decipher this.
    That is the problem. No physics ib your reasoning.

    If you think empirical science is subjective then there is nothing more to discuss. Light detection by the eye and brain is physics not metaphysics.
    I had no clue what you were saying your spelling and grammar is so poor.

    This wasn't a discussion.

    This was me trying to give you information you have no desire to hear.

    There is no known physics that can describe an experience. It can't be reduced to physics.

    And no physical characteristic of energy is color or information about color. Energy is merely what transforms cis retinal to trans retinal.

    The cell has a mechanism that responds to the movement of a nitrogen atom on a retinal molecule. The cell only responds to the energy indirectly and the movement of the nitrogen atom has no correlation to the energy. It is correlated to the EM and structural properties of retinal molecules.

  7. Top | #97
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguous states westernmost - IOW here
    Posts
    14,848
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    33,061
    Rep Power
    65
    That what lies at the base of perceived color is physical else it wouldn't fit within any evolutionary reasoning leading to the existence of processes making use of it.

  8. Top | #98
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    24,392
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    40,945
    Rep Power
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post
    That what lies at the base of perceived color is physical else it wouldn't fit within any evolutionary reasoning leading to the existence of processes making use of it.
    Nonsense.

    All that is required is the ability for the response to the transformation of cis retinal to change over time.

    Then fitness decides the experience.

    If the experience of the food does not allow me to successfully get the food then that experience will become extinct as I become extinct.

    If the banana is experienced as yellow I have a much easier time finding it.

  9. Top | #99
    Veteran Member WAB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Lake Havasu City, AZ
    Posts
    3,797
    Archived
    2,174
    Total Posts
    5,971
    Rep Power
    70
    It would be nice if we could keep the discussion of color in the "COLOUR" thread that ruby sparks begat a long while ago - but as it is related to the topic at hand here, I guess whatever.

    I am trying to understand untermensche's position.

    Unter, what qualifies as objective to you?

    Does the sun exist, and does it exist objectively? I say yes, it exists objectively. It is an object, and its existence is not dependent on any entity's perception or understanding of it. I claim that it is real and absolute, if anything can be said to be absolute.

    Now - this does NOT mean that my knowledge of the sun, and my experience of the sun, is objective. I experience and know about the sun subjectively. And that's true with respect to just about anything. All I know is what I learn and perceive and understand; but my learning, my perception, and my understanding of objects independent and distinct from myself have no bearing at all on the reality of what I learn, perceive, or understand: except to ME.

    It is true that we can always go to the brain in a vat theory, or posit that all of us (if there are others at all, besides myself) are just involved in a super-duper computer program: we are sprites, utterly deluded, convinced that we exist as entities when in fact we're just programmed, digital, ones and zeroes...etc.

    While all that can be interesting, and I do love to speculate about stuff, I don't think I need to claim that I can only believe in the sun's existence, or that I must have faith in its existence. I can safely say that I know the sun exists. As I know that WWI was an event that really happened (even though I had no experience of it at all).

    Do you know the sun exists? Or do you only believe it, or have faith in it?
    A man should never be ashamed to own that he has been in the wrong, which is but saying in other words that he is wiser today than he was yesterday.
    - Alexander Pope

  10. Top | #100
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    24,392
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    40,945
    Rep Power
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by WAB View Post
    Unter, what qualifies as objective to you?
    My position is that as minds all is subjective.

    All we have are experiences.

    Our experiences of the world and the world are not the same thing. The world has no color but our experiences do. Because our experiences are created by an evolved brain. Experiences are not the world somehow directly entering our minds.

    "Objective" is a subset of subjective experience.

    It is an assumption that there are 'things' in the world behind some of our experiences.

    We experience ourselves standing on the planet and not falling through it. So we assume there is something behind the experience causing the experience.

    When we assume there is something out there "behind" our experiences we label that 'thing', not the experience of it, as "objective".

    "Objective" is a subjective assumption about things in the world related to our experiences.

    We can't prove there are "objects" behind our experiences because all we have are experiences.

    But there is great utility in assuming there are 'things' behind certain experiences and if we fail to make the assumption we will not survive long.

    If we don't assume there is something behind our experience of the cliff we will not survive long. Evolution drives us to make that assumption.

Posting Permissions

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