COLOUR

[ruby sparks]

You have a gift for not actually engaging with what is actually being said and not making any point in relation to it.

 

[fromderinside]

You are right. What you actually need is a view of the system in which rocks evolve.  Arrow of time

Cosmological arrow of time

The cosmological arrow of time points in the direction of the universe's expansion. It may be linked to the thermodynamic arrow, with the universe heading towards a heat death(Big Chill) as the amount of usable energy becomes negligible. Alternatively, it may be an artifact of our place in the universe's evolution (see the Anthropic bias), with this arrow reversing as gravity pulls everything back into a Big Crunch.If this arrow of time is related to the other arrows of time, then the future is by definition the direction towards which the universe becomes bigger. Thus, the universe expands—rather than shrinks—by definition.

The thermodynamic arrow of time and the second law of thermodynamics are thought to be a consequence of the initial conditions in the early universe.^[8] Therefore, they ultimately result from the cosmological set-up.

Below is a layman's description of how he sees color evolving in rocks.

Universe is an isolated (closed) system with no externals source for energy input from outside (open) system. So heat death is inevitable. Time's arrow.

Elements (atoms) and Molecules (combinations or groups of elements) have properties determined by various stable processes arriving at forms sustaining minimum entropy (most stable, energy conserving, organization).

Some of those forms demonstrate a capability for emitting coherent electromagnetic radiation including in the band of EM frequencies we call visible frequencies. Most elements and molecules also transfer energy (photons) including visible frequency photons - These visible frequencies are we receive from the sun as light - while sustaining stability. These are a couple of the processes where color evolves as a property in rocks.

Seems to me that the laws governing matter and energy provide many avenues for color to become a property in objects.

 

[Jayjay]

I think that a major problem here is one of the earlier questions I tried to have clarified, "What is the definition of color that is being used?"

That is a very good point. How many threads here have we seen this request made as a prerequisite to having a shared discussion?

In some ways, is it not sightly unusual that we are being asked to accept numerous definitions? In a way, I think it is. At times in this thread, colour has been defined by those not accepting the implied OP definition (colour as a brain experience only) as existing in at least 4 ways in 4 different places (in light, in objects, in the optic nerve and in the brain).

To my mind, the models that have colour, in different forms, in all 4 places are, I think, guilty of stretching definitions too far and just being confused, imprecise and profligate.

However, imo, the model that has it only in/of objects and in/of brains (possibly the most naturally intuitive model for the average human) is arguably definitionally precise, because it is saying that objects have the real, objective, actual colour and that the brain experience is merely a secondary representation or psychological model of this. This is colour on a par with shape. It is also the distinction between 'red' and 'redness'. Red qualia are allowed, but only as mimics of 'true red'.

Even then, it might arguably be helpful and clarifying not to use the same term for what are very different phenomena with different properties.

But more fundamentally, and no matter how precise its two related but different definitions are, in my opinion it is simply wrong. I would quite strongly claim that objects are not in fact actually coloured at all. Imo, that is probably a mistake, and an illusion of perception (a form of mental projection), and the model that has objects as coloured is falling for it.

As for light, I'm not particularly convinced at all. Seems pretty unlikely, imo. Ditto the optic nerve.

I would argue that the definition of color as property of light makes more sense. Consider, for example, this optical illusion:



The small squares are in fact the same "color", in terms of how your computer or phone display's pixels are configured or which wavelengths of light happen to hit your eyeball. But your brain perceives them as two different colors. If you define color as mental event, then you'd have to agree that these are two different colors. But what do you call that color? Purple or gray? Purple-on-gray or gray-on-purple perhaps? To me that seems unnecessarily complicated, and impossible to qualify (and much less quantify) except by referencing private constructs in your brain. Which could be different for you and me, let alone for other animals that have different sensory organs, or even machines with cameras.

On the other hand, the wavelengths and amount of photons (i.e. brightness) in a beam of light is quantifiable. And we can use the same definition with any observer.

 

[fromderinside]

I knew this was going to happen. It's why I chose psychoacoustics rather than visual psychophysics.

Face it pitch and timbre are much easier to understand and delineate. For instance one can - with the aid of an anechoic chamber - emulate the effects of acoustic energy being passed through a trumpet by just using a single noise source and rotating delay by a fixed amount of through one speaker whilst the other two speakers give you a nice sound field upon which to play the shifted energy. Sounds a bit like a noise shaped by physical space such as passing arpetured air through a pipe.

The wonderful thing is the human hearing system can actually process and discriminate such whilst the mind can interpret how that happens by modelling physical parameters.

From the mind of one who has ventured through Upson Downs listening to the Jazz Man.

 

[jab]

.... it will always be inaccruate to refer to a wavelength as "being a color"...

Inaccurate as to which colour, yes, point about categories taken, but inaccurate to say that light has/is a colour property (of some sort)?


ps this thread is a spin-off of a thread on moral realism, so as such my initial interest was in the philosophical issue of colour realism.

Yes, because color only exists as a mental category. The light itself cares not what category it is sorted into by an observer. A wave with a wavelength of 556 nm will still be a wave with a wavelength of 556 whether some observer calls it (and perceives it) as "red" or just as generally"dark-colored" as in a bicolorate language/culture.

nor does a chair care whether it is conceptualized by an observer as a chair a table a dog a book of manners.
BTW, what do you mean by "mental category"?

 

[jab]

answer to c); dreams--though some people claim to dream only in black and white (and, presumably, shades of gray).

 

[Politesse]

Yes, because color only exists as a mental category. The light itself cares not what category it is sorted into by an observer. A wave with a wavelength of 556 nm will still be a wave with a wavelength of 556 whether some observer calls it (and perceives it) as "red" or just as generally"dark-colored" as in a bicolorate language/culture.

nor does a chair care whether it is conceptualized by an observer as a chair a table a dog a book of manners.
BTW, what do you mean by "mental category"?

Well, indeed. "Chairs" are not a relevant concept in any context except within and between human minds. My cat sits on chairs all the time, and the object itself is clearly "real", but I doubt that the cat conceptualizes them as "chairs". We rely on mental categories to make sense of and navigate the swaths of sensory data with which we are constantly inundated.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Yes, because color only exists as a mental category. The light itself cares not what category it is sorted into by an observer. A wave with a wavelength of 556 nm will still be a wave with a wavelength of 556 whether some observer calls it (and perceives it) as "red" or just as generally"dark-colored" as in a bicolorate language/culture.

nor does a chair care whether it is conceptualized by an observer as a chair a table a dog a book of manners.
BTW, what do you mean by "mental category"?

Well, indeed. "Chairs" are not a relevant concept in any context except within and between human minds. My cat sits on chairs all the time, and the object itself is clearly "real", but I doubt that the cat conceptualizes them as "chairs".

But the cat does not make up the chair. The chair's form is objective and informs the cat's actions in relation to it as you affirm here:

We rely on mental categories to make sense of and navigate the swaths of sensory data with which we are constantly inundated.

So, to continue with the analogy in regard to ruby's ever fungible stance itt, you wouldn't say that the form of the chair exists ONLY in the mind of the cat. The form of the chair is communicated to the cat's brain via the cat's sensory apparatus, thus it is BOTH true that the chair exists objectively AND that the cat "experiences" the chair subjectively.

But if there were never any objectively existing object as a chair to "inform" the cat's brain what it is, the cat's brain could/would never create a mental map of a chair. How could it and why would it? This is chair ex-nihilo.

 

[Politesse]

Well, indeed. "Chairs" are not a relevant concept in any context except within and between human minds. My cat sits on chairs all the time, and the object itself is clearly "real", but I doubt that the cat conceptualizes them as "chairs".

But the cat does not make up the chair. The chair's form is objective and informs the cat's actions in relation to it as you affirm here:

We rely on mental categories to make sense of and navigate the swaths of sensory data with which we are constantly inundated.

So, to continue with the analogy in regard to ruby's ever fungible stance itt, you wouldn't say that the form of the chair exists ONLY in the mind of the cat. The form of the chair is communicated to the cat's brain via the cat's sensory apparatus, thus it is BOTH true that the chair exists objectively AND that the cat "experiences" the chair subjectively.

But if there were never any objectively existing object as a chair to "inform" the cat's brain what it is, the cat's brain could/would never create a mental map of a chair. How could it and why would it? This is chair ex-nihilo.

So you're finally getting it? Both physical properties and mental categories are "real" in some sense, but they are not synonyms and only overlap in certain contexts. "Color" is like "chair"; "light wavelength" is like "the physical form that the cat interacts with." The cat is not interacting with "a chair" at all, unless a human is observing them. The cat from its own perspective is just interacting with an object, likely quite undistinguished from the table sitting next to it, or the plate that is on the table, except for being smaller and not as tall. And to say "the category of color it will at some point be sorted into is an inherent property of certain surfaces" makes as much sense as "being a future wooden chair is an inherent natural property of certain trees".

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

So, to continue with the analogy in regard to ruby's ever fungible stance itt, you wouldn't say that the form of the chair exists ONLY in the mind of the cat. The form of the chair is communicated to the cat's brain via the cat's sensory apparatus, thus it is BOTH true that the chair exists objectively AND that the cat "experiences" the chair subjectively.

But if there were never any objectively existing object as a chair to "inform" the cat's brain what it is, the cat's brain could/would never create a mental map of a chair. How could it and why would it? This is chair ex-nihilo.

So you're finally getting it?

I have never wavered once in regard to anything I've argued itt.

"Color" is like "chair"; "light wavelength" is like "the physical form that the cat interacts with."

Categorically incorrect (pun intended). "Chair" is what we call "the physical form that the cat interacts with." "Color" is what we call the category of spectral wavelengths created by photons bouncing off of, or being emanated from various objects.

Thus, the subcategory color "red" is what we call the wavelength 450 nm (or whatever the specifics) that, when detected by our optical processing units (aka, "eyes"), causes the cones in our eyes to translate the information received as accurately as possible into chemical language the brain "speaks," resulting in the mimicry of the external condition into the following:



Thus, the color you see above exists BOTH independently of you AND it exists as a sort of copy of the original in your brain, where it can then take on additional associations. It does not ONLY exist in your brain, however.

This is an evolved trait that is measurably, universally experienced in fundamentally the same manner by something on the order of 92% of all humans (and many other species), which is an overwhelming number of case studies (some 7 billion just in the current population) all sufficiently proving these conditions to be true. Indeed, it is the fact that there are exceptions to the rule, which prove the rule.

The cat from its own perspective is just interacting with an object

I.e., the objective conditions of that object, having nothing whatsoever to do with the cat's "perspective." The cat's perspective may include, for example, a third arm on the chair (due to some unknown cat-scratch-fever brain condition unique to the cat), that is not objectively there and if the cat were to attempt to jump upon that third arm, it would fall to the ground, not magically float upon its perspective.

Iow, the objective conditions of that object exist whether the cat does or not. Further, it is those conditions that inform the cat of what it is, not the cat's brain making shit up ex-nihilo. In short, we copy/mimic/recreate that which objectively exists to the best of our abilities or we die.

Monkey see, monkey do.

And to say "the category of color it will at some point be sorted into is an inherent property of certain surfaces" makes as much sense as "being a future wooden chair is an inherent natural property of certain trees".

What?

 

[Politesse]

You're very confused about the difference between "it is" and "we call".

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

You're very confused about the difference between "it is" and "we call".

Cute.

 

[skepticalbip]

You're very confused about the difference between "it is" and "we call".

Yes... That ties closely to my trying to get the explicit definition for 'color' that is being used. Then an explanation of how that definition applies to objects, wavelength of light, neurons firing, and our mental perception of the stimulus. So far, I have seen several very different definitions being used depending on what they are talking about.

 

[steve_bank]

You're very confused about the difference between "it is" and "we call".

Yes... That ties closely to my trying to get the explicit definition for 'color' that is being used. Then an explanation of how that definition applies to objects, wavelength of light, neurons firing, and our mental perception of the stimulus. So far, I have seen several very different definitions being used depending on what they are talking about.

The explicit definition of color is wavelengths. The other descriptions are about subjective perceptions which like most things are contextual.. What is beauty regarding color and art?

 

[jab]

Yes, because color only exists as a mental category. The light itself cares not what category it is sorted into by an observer. A wave with a wavelength of 556 nm will still be a wave with a wavelength of 556 whether some observer calls it (and perceives it) as "red" or just as generally"dark-colored" as in a bicolorate language/culture.

nor does a chair care whether it is conceptualized by an observer as a chair a table a dog a book of manners.
BTW, what do you mean by "mental category"?

Well, indeed. "Chairs" are not a relevant concept in any context except within and between human minds. My cat sits on chairs all the time, and the object itself is clearly "real", but I doubt that the cat conceptualizes them as "chairs". We rely on mental categories to make sense of and navigate the swaths of sensory data with which we are constantly inundated.

So how does "chair" differ from "red"

 

[steve_bank]

Well, indeed. "Chairs" are not a relevant concept in any context except within and between human minds. My cat sits on chairs all the time, and the object itself is clearly "real", but I doubt that the cat conceptualizes them as "chairs". We rely on mental categories to make sense of and navigate the swaths of sensory data with which we are constantly inundated.

So how does "chair" differ from "red"

Chair is a noun, red is an adjective.

 

[Jayjay]

Well, indeed. "Chairs" are not a relevant concept in any context except within and between human minds. My cat sits on chairs all the time, and the object itself is clearly "real", but I doubt that the cat conceptualizes them as "chairs". We rely on mental categories to make sense of and navigate the swaths of sensory data with which we are constantly inundated.

So how does "chair" differ from "red"

Chair is a noun, red is an adjective.

Isn't that an artifact of language? It could be just as well that "red" is a noun and "chair" is an adjective.

 

[Politesse]

Well, indeed. "Chairs" are not a relevant concept in any context except within and between human minds. My cat sits on chairs all the time, and the object itself is clearly "real", but I doubt that the cat conceptualizes them as "chairs". We rely on mental categories to make sense of and navigate the swaths of sensory data with which we are constantly inundated.

So how does "chair" differ from "red"

They have different referents, definitions, and qualities. They are both placeholders for concepts, though, as indeed are all words. "We" are highly evolved nervous systems embedded in a physically bounded organism, and we fundamentally perceive the world through a screen of consciousness that our neurological apparatus creates for us.

 

[steve_bank]

Chair is a noun, red is an adjective.

Isn't that an artifact of language? It could be just as well that "red" is a noun and "chair" is an adjective.

Words are arbitry an only have value in what we agree them to mean. Instead of color I could say omfug but nobody would know what I meant.

If I point to an object and say omfug does it mean

the object
the color
the shape
the size?

Or am I saying move the object?

It s all context that we learn by immersion from childhood. There is no precise definition of noun, adjective, verb, and adverb. We learn from looking at examples.

In the end it is how are bio neral net works. It is all a function of the brain.

Without articulate speech there are monkeys who have specific sounds for predator warnings. Like snake, hawk, tiger. Without language it is passed on by observation and mimic.

There are chimps that fashion tools and pass the skill onto the young by observation and mimic. No words.

 

[fromderinside]

There are chimps that fashion tools and pass the skill onto the young by observation and mimic. No words.

Oooh. Tell me more you colorful one. Remember. This is about colour. Not words. Not mimicry. Maybe observation. But always Colour.