Objective/Subjective

[skepticalbip]

EM radiation carries energy.

Indeed... But I would say that EM radiation is energy rather than carrying energy. The energy of a photon is expressed as E=hf (the Planck-Einstein relation).

Not sure why you keep trying to correct Unter since he seems incapable of understanding anything outside his woo vision of the world.

I understand this.

People that think energy carries information about color or that objects have color as a property don't have a clue.

Since you think you know so much tell me specifically how the cell knows what caused the nitrogen atom to move and knows any feature of the energy that merely broke a bond?

Put up or shut up.

Cells know nothing. Cells react to stimuli.

 

[untermensche]

I understand this.

People that think energy carries information about color or that objects have color as a property don't have a clue.

Since you think you know so much tell me specifically how the cell knows what caused the nitrogen atom to move and knows any feature of the energy that merely broke a bond?

Put up or shut up.

Cells know nothing. Cells react to stimuli.

That's my point. The cell has mechanisms that react to the movement of a nitrogen atom. Color is derived from the movement of nitrogen atoms in a specific array.

The cell cannot possibly know anything about what caused the nitrogen atoms to move. It has no mechanism for that. The cell cannot possibly know anything about the stimulus.

The movement of a nitrogen atom is related to the EM and structural properties of retinal molecules, not related to the energy that was converted to molecular energy and momentarily broke one bond.

Color is an experience. It is not any part of energy.

 

[steve_bank]

This is probably what medieval philosophical debate was like.


Cells know nothing. Mind is the result of cells. Therefore I know nothing! I know nothing therefore I am not! Eureka! I do not exist!

Knowledge is cells....if not then what is physical basis of knowledge?

When we see a particular visible light wavelength it does not change depending on how we think about it or label it. That is objective perception.

If a particular color evokes a memory negative or positive and changes how we feel, that is subjective.

Same with sound. The physical sensation of sound is objective. How music makes us feel is subjective. Same with visual art.

 

[bilby]

EM radiation carries energy.

Indeed... But I would say that EM radiation is energy rather than carrying energy. The energy of a photon is expressed as E=hf (the Planck-Einstein relation).

Not sure why you keep trying to correct Unter since he seems incapable of understanding anything outside his woo vision of the world.

He's a fundamentalist anti-Einsteinian. That is, he believes that not only are some frames of reference preferred, but that only one perspective is possible on anything, and that any other way of describing anything is stupid, ignorant, and wrong.

He is not only unprepared to consider other ways of describing reality than his one preferred perspective; He is determined to ridicule and browbeat everyone into agreeing with his One True Model^TM of reality.

That it is usually perfectly correct and reasonable to describe reality in a variety of ways, and to model high level behaviour without reference to the low level behaviours that cause and underly it, has passed him by completely.

The fact remains that you can accurately and correctly model the behaviour of an eye without any knowledge of atoms and molecules, and certainly without any understanding of quantum physics. Which fact is easily proven by the existence of Newton's considerable body of work on light and optics, hundreds of years before modern chemistry or quantum physics. Newton was able to make a large number of highly accurate discoveries about light and colour, and yet had no clue that such things as Nitrogen or molecular bonds or photons even existed.

Which, according to our resident monomaniac, made him an idiot who believed magical nonsense.

Of course, he was not; (He was a genius who believed magical nonsense, but whose understanding of colour and optics owed nothing to the magical nonsense he happened to believe).

 

[untermensche]

This is probably what medieval philosophical debate was like.

Nope.

This is a modern misconception.

Color is not a part of energy. Energy is merely correlated to the experience of color.

Color is ONLY an experience. It is nothing else.

Cells know nothing. Mind is the result of cells.

You have no idea what a mind is. The mind is correlated to the brain but what the mind or what experience actually are is not known.

Therefore I know nothing! I know nothing therefore I am not! Eureka! I do not exist!

You know nothing about color.

Knowledge is cells....if not then what is physical basis of knowledge?

Knowledge is something minds possess. Not cells. Cells have no knowledge.

When we see a particular visible light wavelength

We don't "see" energy. We experience color.

Color and vision are experiences.

If a particular color evokes a memory negative or positive and changes how we feel, that is subjective.

The experience of color can have emotional consequences.

It is not an emotional response to something "out there". It is an emotional response to a subjective experience.

Same with sound.

Exactly. Sound is only an experience. It is not the stimulus. It is not vibrating air.

Bats turn vibrating air into a visual experience so precise they can catch insects in flight.

Vibrating air is not a sound or a sight. It is something that evolved organisms turn into experiences.

 

[untermensche]

Which, according to our resident monomaniac, made him an idiot who believed magical nonsense.

You're the resident idiot if you think color is more than an experience.

Color is an evolved experience based on arrays on nitrogen atoms moving inside cells.

Newton did not think light was a wave and had no clue what energy does in the eye.

All he knew about color were his experiences of color.

And he abstracted his experience of the continuous spectrum into 7 distinct colors based upon his superstitions.

The only thing Newton showed was that prisms separate energy. He had no clue what color is.

The fact remains that you can accurately and correctly model the behaviour of an eye without any knowledge of atoms and molecules

Baloney.

You can abstract the behavior of the eye by ignoring what is actually going on.

The mechanism has been reduced to a 5 angstrom movement of a nitrogen atom. This is known for certain.

Cells have specific mechanisms believe it or not.



https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4727664/

We can clearly see that the energy is only doing one thing. It is causing the isomerization of cis retinal. And the transformation of cis retinal to trans retinal is what initiates the cellular cascade.

How does the absorption of light by the retinal Schiff base generate a signal? George Wald and his coworkers discovered that light absorption results in the isomerization of the 11-cis-retinal group of rhodopsin to its all-trans form (Figure 32.23). This isomerization causes the Schiff-base nitrogen atom to move approximately 5 Å, assuming that the cyclohexane ring of the retinal group remains fixed. In essence, the light energy of a photon is converted into atomic motion. The change in atomic positions, like the binding of a ligand to other 7TM receptors, sets in train a series of events that lead to the closing of ion channels and the generation of a nerve impulse.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22541/

Thinking energy has information about color in it is just a primitive misunderstanding.

 

[steve_bank]

Nope.

This is a modern misconception.

Color is not a part of energy. Energy is merely correlated to the experience of color.

Color is ONLY an experience. It is nothing else.



You have no idea what a mind is. The mind is correlated to the brain but what the mind or what experience actually are is not known.

Therefore I know nothing! I know nothing therefore I am not! Eureka! I do not exist!

You know nothing about color.

Knowledge is cells....if not then what is physical basis of knowledge?

Knowledge is something minds possess. Not cells. Cells have no knowledge.

When we see a particular visible light wavelength

We don't "see" energy. We experience color.

Color and vision are experiences.

If a particular color evokes a memory negative or positive and changes how we feel, that is subjective.

The experience of color can have emotional consequences.

It is not an emotional response to something "out there". It is an emotional response to a subjective experience.

Same with sound.

Exactly. Sound is only an experience. It is not the stimulus. It is not vibrating air.

Bats turn vibrating air into a visual experience so precise they can catch insects in flight.

Vibrating air is not a sound or a sight. It is something that evolved organisms turn into experiences.

Hmmm...if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it does it make a sound?

Sound is a precise technical definition. In air it propagates as longitudinal waves. Pressure can be measured. Work can be done with sound waves, it carries energy. It takes a transfer of energy from the source of a sound to the ear to hear something.

Explain how light, electromagnetic radiation, interacts with cells in the eye to detect the prescience of a color?

Classical philosophical debate on things like vision and mind were based largely in metaphysical concepts, there was no experimental science.

Does phlogiston factor into your theory?.

 

[untermensche]

Hmmm...if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it does it make a sound?

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 a precise technical definition.

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

In air it propagates as longitudinal waves. Pressure can be measured.

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

The stimulus is not sound.

Explain how light, electromagnetic radiation, interacts with cells in the eye to detect the prescience of a color?

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.

 

[fromderinside]

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

 

[steve_bank]

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.

In air it propagates as longitudinal waves. Pressure can be measured.

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

The stimulus is not sound.

Explain how light, electromagnetic radiation, interacts with cells in the eye to detect the prescience of a color?

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?

 

[untermensche]

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.

 

[untermensche]

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.

 

[steve_bank]

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.

 

[untermensche]

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.

 

[steve_bank]

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.

 

[untermensche]

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.

 

[fromderinside]

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.

 

[untermensche]

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.

 

[WAB]

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?

 

[untermensche]

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.