COLOUR

[skepticalbip]

There are entirely too many broad and vague generalizations that amount to no information in this spiel. I can only guess at what you are trying to say.

First I was saying that frequency of light was the information being encoded, transduced, and transmitted.

Exactly what 'information' other than frequency and energy level? By 'encoded are you suggesting something like morse code or do you mean a photodetector being switched on? By 'transduced' do you mean something other than the reception of a photon switching on the photoreceptor, or if not, transduced from what to what? 'transmitted' in what form and to where?

Now there is a near blue channel, green channel, and a red and/or yellow channel in the brain brought about by the transduction and faithful transport of frequency information independently up the several neural channels to the cortex.

'Blue, green, and red channels in the brain", WTF? Do you mean that there are neurons in the brain that are connected to specific nerve fibers in the optic nerve that originate at specific photoreceptors in the retina, or do you mean something entirely different?

"brought about by the transduction and faithful transport of frequency information independently up the several neural channels to the cortex." Just WOW, Is this supposed to mean that the cones, each connected to a neuron in the brain through a nerve fiber in the optic nerve, fires when stimulated by a photon so sends a bioelectric signal along the nerve fiber to fire the neuron? Or do you mean something entirely different?

I won't try to figure out what the rest of this spiel is supposed to mean until you can be a bit clearer. Answering the above questions may shed a little light on what you mean in the rest of your post.

As for light it is information. Simply by there the existence of light and absence of light information is available. Considering energy aspect light includes the previous and others like warmth and coolness of light. That pairing works for reflected light as well. Information is inherent in most anything.

There need not be light energy ongoing to provide light information. If a channel, like a neural pathway that periodically passes light information is not presently passing information (active) information about that frequency(s) of light is being passed via those channels.

As for energy = information yes you would.

 Entropy in thermodynamics and information theory

 

[ruby sparks]

First I was saying that frequency of light was the information being encoded, transduced, and transmitted. Now there is a near blue channel, green channel, and a red and/or yellow channel in the brain brought about by the transduction and faithful transport of frequency information independently up the several neural channels to the cortex.

As for light it is information. Simply by there the existence of light and absence of light information is available. Considering energy aspect light includes the previous and others like warmth and coolness of light. That pairing works for reflected light as well. Information is inherent in most anything.

There need not be light energy ongoing to provide light information. If a channel, like a neural pathway that periodically passes light information is not presently passing information (active) information about that frequency(s) of light is being passed via those channels.

As for energy = information yes you would.

 Entropy in thermodynamics and information theory

Ok so let’s agree that light is or contains information, in the form of frequencies.

Would you also say that what travels along the optic nerve is also information (that has been transduced from light frequency or frequencies to electro-chemical signals)?

I’m not saying the process is simple. I would say it’s very very complex indeed. Just for starters, as I understand it, the ‘nerve’ is really a bundle of many hundreds of thousands (possibly 1.7 million) individual nerve fibres (axons). And I’m not even including the also highly complex transduction processes themselves at this point. I’m just doing the optic nerve.

But in very general terms would you say the above about the optic nerve? It’s what I might say.

 

[fromderinside]

 Photoreceptor cell

A photoreceptor cell is a specialized type of neuroepithelial cell found in the retina that is capable of visual phototransduction. The great biological importance of photoreceptors is that they convert light (visible electromagnetic radiation) into signals that can stimulate biological processes. To be more specific, photoreceptor proteins in the cell absorb photons, triggering a change in the cell's membrane potential.

Also spatial layout of cones in fovea. This spatial layout is preserved to the cortex through the optic nerve. In this case it explains one form of color blindness is due to changed function of receptor cells removing sensitivity to a part of visible spectrum.

 Optic nerve

The optic nerve is composed of retinalganglion cell axons and glial cells. Each human optic nerve contains between 770,000 and 1.7 million nerve fibers,^[4] which are axons of the retinal ganglion cells of one retina. In the fovea, which has high acuity, these ganglion cells connect to as few as 5 photoreceptor cells; in other areas of retina, they connect to many thousand photoreceptors.

Notice the optic nerve does not include the photoreceptor cell.



Now it is pretty well established that color becomes relevant at the photoreceptor cell and that this color reference is preserve spatially to the cortex removing the need for the brain to inventolor. If we agree that much processing takes place within the brain adjusting scenes based on analysis using known references we have a meal.

Well, we still have to clarify what is meant by transduction. It means convert mode of transport for information,meaning the information remains the same. Only the mode of information transport changes. It does not mean convert light into energy for the brain to do whatever it choses.

That is to say light becomes color because opsins in the receptor respond to light frequencies to which they are sensitive then cause that information to be transduced to biochemical indications this particular cell received light to which it was sensitive. Neurons receiving this information passing it along as impulses (bits) for further processing up this neuron's pathway.

We can drill down if you wish. However I sense a reluctance on your part of being more specific.

 

[ruby sparks]

Ok I think that was a yes to what I asked about the optic nerve, based on ‘convert mode of transport for information’.

So that’s at least 4 things we can generally agree on.

1. Light is (and/or is a transport medium for) EM frequency information external to the organism.
2. Electro-chemical signals are another form of (and/or transport medium for) information, this time in the optic nerve.
3. Processing at the retina at least fairly accurately preserves the information in the former and it is transduced into the latter media. In relation to colour, this processing involves cones.
4. The information we are referring to is about, or results in (or from) or contributes to, the production of colour.

Now, in relation to light that reaches the eye after being reflected from an object (eg a strawberry) would you agree with the following?

5. Sunlight is (and/or is a transport medium for) information across a spectrum of EM frequencies.
6. An object such as a strawberry which sunlight strikes, absorbs some frequencies and reflects others.
7. Light reflected from such an object which enters the eye of an organism contains or is the reflected frequencies, and as such is (and/or is a transport medium for) information about those frequencies only.

I have no problem getting more specific and that is what I intend to do, including as regards 3 (transduction at the retina), once we can first establish in principle what we do agree on.

 

[fromderinside]

Go for it.

 

[ruby sparks]

Ok, so I'll assume we broadly agree on what I've said so far.

Next up, something more about objects. I would say objects have properties which, in relation to light, absorb some information (in the form of frequencies) and reflect others, but that none of these properties (of the object) is colour of itself. One of the properties or characteristics might be described or measured as 'reflectance' for example.

There is the alternative that objects are or contain (or manifest) information about light or colour.

I'm not against saying that objects are or contain information.

I would not say an object contains or is information about light.

I might at a pinch say that an object might be or contain information about colour, in the sense that it contains or is information that goes towards the production of colour, and as such is closely related to colour.

But if you want to say that in your preferred model, colour is an actual property of objects, then we might not agree.

I'm leaving transduction until my next post. I'm still (briefly) checking what other things we agree or disagree on first.

 

[Politesse]

Suppose I were to set up a weather relay station out in the Atlantic whose job is to look out for hurricanes. It is not AI-enabled, just a simple relay with a mounted Anemometer attached to note the current wind speed. Whenever the wind speed hits a certain defined limit, the relay prepares a packet of data including its periodic measurements over the previous 24 hours, and sends it to a regional weather center for analysis. It's usually right about whether or not there is a hurricane, though it occasionally makes mistakes.

Would you say that "the packets are in the hurricane", or that "the hurricane produces the packets"? What about "The packets aren't a construct, they are the hurricane itself"? What about "The relay can see the hurricane"?

 

[fromderinside]

I'm leaving transduction until my next post. I'm still (briefly) checking what other things we agree or disagree on first.

You probably should have taken up transduction first. Doing so would save you retracting when you are challenged to explain what you just wrote. Hint absorption is a form of transduction which might explain how plants use sunlight to produce energy.

 Photosynthesis

 Chlorophyll

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Suppose I were to set up a weather relay station out in the Atlantic whose job is to look out for hurricanes. It is not AI-enabled, just a simple relay with a mounted Anemometer attached to note the current wind speed. Whenever the wind speed hits a certain defined limit, the relay prepares a packet of data including its periodic measurements over the previous 24 hours, and sends it to a regional weather center for analysis. It's usually right about whether or not there is a hurricane, though it occasionally makes mistakes.

Would you say that "the packets are in the hurricane", or that "the hurricane produces the packets"? What about "The packets aren't a construct, they are the hurricane itself"? What about "The relay can see the hurricane"?

Wrong questions. The proper questions (as it relates to this thread) are: did the relay accurately copy the objective conditions of the hurricane or did it just randomly make up the data based on nothing?

And the word "hurricane" refers to a clearly defined and particular weather condition, not a state of mind; not what it's like to live through (i.e., "experience") that clearly defined and particular weather condition. So, yes, in a very accurate sense, the "packet of data" would indeed constitute the "hurricane itself."

Until and unless anyone here can explain how the cones--not the brain--know to encode "blue" ex nihilo, all of this other blather is just a semantics game circling the well-worn drain of the hard problem.

So to use the hurricane example, it would be like a relay prepares a packet of data including the periodic measurements AND the DNA code of a Venusian microbe over the previous 24 hours. The obvious question being, where the fuck did it get the DNA code of a Venusian microbe and what does it have to do with a clearly defined and particular weather condition?

 

[fromderinside]

 Photoreceptor cell



The responsivity of the various cones can be considered proportional to the the amount of specific light frequency impinging the cell and the sensitivity of opsins to specific frequencies of light. Outputs should be commensurate with results of pairing these values. Combining the two 0.3 sensitivity with 5 units light at frequency A produces 1.5 units of output from the cell. Accumulating these numbers upstream permits computation of a full spectrum.

Three different classes of photopsins in the cones react to different ranges of light frequency, a differentiation that allows the visual system to calculate color. The function of the photoreceptor cell is to convert the light energy of the photon into a form of energy communicable to the nervous system and readily usable to the organism: This conversion is called signal transduction.

As a bonus for further discussion provide this bit that differs from my assessment but does not change it. Rather, it puts the eye system in agreement with the design of the ear system. Remember early level nervous system provides information to engage systems to facilitate head turning before much about the sound is known. So too,does the eye provide information necessary for eye protection prior to anything other than magnitude being communicated about the immediately viewed event.

The opsin found in the intrinsically photosensitive ganglion cells of the retina is called melanopsin. These cells are involved in various reflexive responses of the brain and body to the presence of (day)light, such as the regulation of circadian rhythms, pupillary reflex and other non-visual responses to light. Melanopsin functionally resembles invertebrate opsins.

When light activates the melanopsin signaling system, the melanopsin-containing ganglion cells discharge nerve impulses that are conducted through their axons to specific brain targets. These targets include the olivary pretectal nucleus (a center responsible for controlling the pupil of the eye), the LGN, and, through the retinohypothalamic tract (RHT), the suprachiasmatic nucleus of the hypothalamus (the master pacemaker of circadian rhythms). Melanopsin-containing ganglion cells are thought to influence these targets by releasing from their axon terminals the neurotransmitters glutamate and pituitary adenylate cyclase activating polypeptide (PACAP).

It seems to me that this isn't really a philosophical discussion any more. Rather it's physical explanation of color assigning many philosophical issues to history

 

[ruby sparks]

I'm leaving transduction until my next post. I'm still (briefly) checking what other things we agree or disagree on first.

You probably should have taken up transduction first. Doing so would save you retracting when you are challenged to explain what you just wrote. Hint absorption is a form of transduction which might explain how plants use sunlight to produce energy.

 Photosynthesis

 Chlorophyll

Could you just tell me what your preferred answer is to the question about objects?

I promise I will do transduction straight after that.

 

[ruby sparks]

Suppose I were to set up a weather relay station out in the Atlantic whose job is to look out for hurricanes. It is not AI-enabled, just a simple relay with a mounted Anemometer attached to note the current wind speed. Whenever the wind speed hits a certain defined limit, the relay prepares a packet of data including its periodic measurements over the previous 24 hours, and sends it to a regional weather center for analysis. It's usually right about whether or not there is a hurricane, though it occasionally makes mistakes.

Would you say that "the packets are in the hurricane", or that "the hurricane produces the packets"? What about "The packets aren't a construct, they are the hurricane itself"? What about "The relay can see the hurricane"?

Right questions, and very much on OP.

Some people seem to be incapable of understanding that no one has ever been saying there aren't objective properties and conditions that are being responded to and/or processed.

 

[Politesse]

Suppose I were to set up a weather relay station out in the Atlantic whose job is to look out for hurricanes. It is not AI-enabled, just a simple relay with a mounted Anemometer attached to note the current wind speed. Whenever the wind speed hits a certain defined limit, the relay prepares a packet of data including its periodic measurements over the previous 24 hours, and sends it to a regional weather center for analysis. It's usually right about whether or not there is a hurricane, though it occasionally makes mistakes.

Would you say that "the packets are in the hurricane", or that "the hurricane produces the packets"? What about "The packets aren't a construct, they are the hurricane itself"? What about "The relay can see the hurricane"?

Right questions, and very much on OP.

Some people seem to be incapable of understanding that no one has ever been saying there aren't objective conditions that are being responded to or processed.

Their fear of losing the feeling of objectivity is their entire motivation for participating in the thread as far as I can see; they think you're trying to take the material universe away from them and replace it with woo.

 

[fromderinside]

Suppose we set up something in the back yard. What does the yard serve? Is just because it is behind the house it is a yard. Why set something up? Would you say setting up something is presumptive of knowing what is the purpose of a back yard?

One does not fashion a pin to determine the number of angels that stand on the point there of.

Very OP?

 

[ruby sparks]

Their fear of losing the feeling of objectivity is their entire motivation for participating in the thread as far as I can see; they think you're trying to take the material universe away from them and replace it with woo.

Imo one irony is that the very same people, being so apparently keen on ontological and methodological reductionism (as am I, by and large, with caveats), are not following through with that approach here, possibly as you suggest for misguided ideological reasons (or possibly not, it's only a speculation).

Result: imprecision. Colour is here, there and everywhere. Oh and pain is in the external stimuli, let's not forget that gem, nor that frequency = colour, apparently. Equivalent properties abound, in several ways and places. The same term refers to different phenomena and properties. All in all, not very reductionist or precise, imo.

 

[fromderinside]

Could you just tell me what your preferred answer is to the question about objects?

I promise I will do transduction straight after that.

If we're talking living things that transduce light I expect it is because of a property of light else there would be no pressure to develop said transduction. If we're talking about inanimate object that transduces light I expect it is because transduction is a property of nature. It is no sin or violation of things if life uses a property of nature to gain advantage for living. Nor is there a problem with one property of nature acting on another.

 

[ruby sparks]

Could you just tell me what your preferred answer is to the question about objects?

I promise I will do transduction straight after that.

If we're talking living things that transduce light I expect it is because of a property of light else there would be no pressure to develop said transduction. If we're talking about inanimate object that transduces light I expect it is because transduction is a property of nature. It is no sin or violation of things if life uses a property of nature to gain advantage for living. Nor is there a problem with one property of nature acting on another.

I'm not asking about transduction yet. We'll do that in a minute, I promise.

Here was my post:

Ok, so I'll assume we broadly agree on what I've said so far.

Next up, something more about objects. I would say objects have properties which, in relation to light, absorb some information (in the form of frequencies) and reflect others, but that none of these properties (of the object) is colour of itself. One of the properties or characteristics might be described or measured as 'reflectance' for example.

There is the alternative that objects are or contain (or manifest) information about light or colour.

I'm not against saying that objects are or contain information.

I would not say an object contains or is information about light.

I might at a pinch say that an object might be or contain information about colour, in the sense that it contains or is information that goes towards the production of colour, and as such is closely related to colour.

But if you want to say that in your preferred model, colour is an actual property of objects , then we might not agree.

I'm leaving transduction until my next post. I'm still (briefly) checking what other things we agree or disagree on first.

I've bolded the key part.

We did light (sunlight and reflected light) and the optical nerve. We agreed on information and frequencies etc. Before we do the retina (and transduction) I just want to briefly double-check (not discuss in detail) your opinion on the above, about objects, before we do the retinal processes.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Some people

Jtfc. Are you five?

seem to be incapable of understanding that no one has ever been saying there aren't objective properties and conditions that are being responded to and/or processed.

Such disingenuous horseshit.

The question is, once again, WHAT ARE THOSE CONDITIONS? If "blue" does NOT come from the object itself (either as a result of light being emitted or reflected off of it), then how do the cones know how to encode blue? Where the fuck did they get blue or yellow or green from if not from the emitted or reflected light?

You and "some people" itt repeatedly skirt that central fatal issue with, "Brains just do it like with pain, which is the same kind of thing" even though it isn't at all.

Until you address that central fatal flaw, you have nothing but an affirmation that the hard problem exists, which no one ever questioned.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

as far as I can see

Well, you got that part right.

they think you're trying to take the material universe away from them and replace it with woo.

Yeah, that's what we think. We're terrified that ruby has the power to take away the universe. It's not because he can't address the central issue and all he's doing is affirming something that has been affirmed for thousands of years. It's that we're crippled by fear of his almighty freshman year revelations about the hard problem.

 

[fromderinside]

colour is an actual property of objects

No. Frequency/color and energy are properties of light. A light consisting of all visible frequencies in more or less the same proportions has been set as our light standard reference, the white light source. Color is result of an interaction between objects and light. There is no color in darkness because there is no light present. Physical objects can and usually do emit, reflect, adsorb or otherwise interact IAW natural law with light producing what is seen as color by the human observer.

For why we use a standard, check out what was a red car in daylight that is sitting under a sodium light at night and you'll begin to see why the precautions in describing here. The differences in result is suggests why we have a standard light called white light. If we know the differences between reported colors seen under different light. We can 'correct' the result by suitable filter or addition of frequencies between the source and the object.

All I've written earlier fit within the scope of above description of light.

If you are trying to justify the hard problem of consciousness you are failing. As the late Phd from Harvard, Daniel Wegner, said "Consciousness is an illusion." The easiest way to understand that is to recognize humans live in the past.