COLOUR

[Jayjay]

The machine does not detect a color. It detects a characteristic of the light and is programmed (by humans) to associate that characteristic with a certain color.

I think you are using an non-standard definition of "color". What color is, is characteristics of light. If you define color as a fuzzy feeling in a human brain, it can obviously mean anything. But that's not a useful or a sensible definition precisely because it can be anything. A person who hears the word "sky" may have the same parts of his brain activated that denotes the color blue. But there is nothing in the sound waves or pixels that comprise the word "sky" to make that connection. It's all in the observer's brain. Another observer may associate it with some other color, or no color at all.

I am talking about what color actually is.

Color is what a brain creates when the receptor cells in the eye are stimulated by a certain frequency of light.

No, you are asserting that this is what color is. But it's not a commonly accepted definition; it's your own private one. That alone doesn't make it a bad one though. We can hypothesize various definitions and see where they lead. It's not entirely without philosophical merit to think that outside world doesn't exists, only our brain's interpretations of it, because we can't really perceive anything directly, only via our mental faculties. It would be a solipsist view, but not entirely nonsensical.

What makes your particular view nonsensical is that you are also saying that some properties of matter are real, like shape or weight. You are excluding color from this group for completely arbitrary reasons.

EDITED TO ADD: In other words, you are confusing the label for the thing with the thing itself. An idea of a car in your brain is not the car. The label for the shape of an object is not actual object. The idea of a 1kg weight is not a 1kg weight. And likewise, your label for the color red, is not the same as the actual color red.

 

[Jayjay]

Color is determined by matching a sample with a standard. Light at 490 nm is near the green standard. A leaf that displays reflected light that is 490 nm is called green. Humans who didn't know to chose to eat things that reflected 490 nm light because humans thought it edible. Many insects are also attracted to things 490 nm reflecting because they have receptors designed to detect such light. It would have been a whole lot simpler for humans to process if I substituted green for reflected 490 nm light but, the thing is both are equivalent. We don't experience green we report light coming from things that reflect 490 nm light as green. It is true we do appreciate many things green that are not strictly 490 nm light. It is one of those little treasures humans have evolved to codify and treasure.

It is true that the brain takes incoming and ongoing information and and presents it as what one is experiencing even though what it is presenting has little relation to what we are actually processing. The fiction is more in experience than it is in the representation of color. If color is experienced it is an experience because we have a combination of receptors and a system of processes that more or less faithfully report what the receptors processed. We prove this over and over by comparing what we experience with what mechanical manipulation of light suggests we would process if we had those photo receptive elements in our visual system.

Some people do not create green in that light.

the fact that you have to reformulate the sentence "some people can't see green" as "some people can't create green" should be a clue that your definition is color is not what most people think when they think of the word.

Regarding the clip, the way those glasses work is that they block a band of wavelengths near the peaks of M and L cone cells. This helps with a particular type of color blindness, where the those two peaks are near each other, by making it easier to distinguish each cell's activation. In other words, it doesn't help the person see a color that he didn't see before, just improves whatever color vision there was before.

 

[fromderinside]

The experience of color is subjective and only occurs in the mind.

Experience is caused. Ergo color originates in light, thence in receptors, thence as derivative in mind.

You could not describe what red looked like to an alien that saw the sun as what we call purple and had a brain that could not produce red. They would describe purple as "warm".

Since no aliens have been identified they are a non-starter as an reason. Your presumptions have no basis.

There are potentially all kinds of colors aliens could produce that we can't comprehend because our brains don't create those colors.

Again with the aliens. As Neuw Yaurkers would say "fergit about it."

Done here.

 

[untermensche]

I am talking about what color actually is.

Color is what a brain creates when the receptor cells in the eye are stimulated by a certain frequency of light.

No, you are asserting that this is what color is. But it's not a commonly accepted definition; it's your own private one. That alone doesn't make it a bad one though. We can hypothesize various definitions and see where they lead. It's not entirely without philosophical merit to think that outside world doesn't exists, only our brain's interpretations of it, because we can't really perceive anything directly, only via our mental faculties. It would be a solipsist view, but not entirely nonsensical.

What makes your particular view nonsensical is that you are also saying that some properties of matter are real, like shape or weight. You are excluding color from this group for completely arbitrary reasons.

EDITED TO ADD: In other words, you are confusing the label for the thing with the thing itself. An idea of a car in your brain is not the car. The label for the shape of an object is not actual object. The idea of a 1kg weight is not a 1kg weight. And likewise, your label for the color red, is not the same as the actual color red.

Yes. I am making true assertions about what color really is.

I don't care about inaccurate common understandings.

The size of an object is not something created by the brain. The size is out there. Any observer will give you the same measurement for size if they use the same scale. The same is true about shape and texture. These are properties of objects in the world.

But a color blind human that has never experienced blue will never understand what you mean when you say the ball is blue.

Because the ball is not blue. The ball has a surface that reflects a certain frequency of energy. And most human brains arbitrarily, by evolutionary contingency, create the experience of blue when energy of a certain frequency excites cells in the retina.

 

[untermensche]

Color is determined by matching a sample with a standard. Light at 490 nm is near the green standard. A leaf that displays reflected light that is 490 nm is called green. Humans who didn't know to chose to eat things that reflected 490 nm light because humans thought it edible. Many insects are also attracted to things 490 nm reflecting because they have receptors designed to detect such light. It would have been a whole lot simpler for humans to process if I substituted green for reflected 490 nm light but, the thing is both are equivalent. We don't experience green we report light coming from things that reflect 490 nm light as green. It is true we do appreciate many things green that are not strictly 490 nm light. It is one of those little treasures humans have evolved to codify and treasure.

It is true that the brain takes incoming and ongoing information and and presents it as what one is experiencing even though what it is presenting has little relation to what we are actually processing. The fiction is more in experience than it is in the representation of color. If color is experienced it is an experience because we have a combination of receptors and a system of processes that more or less faithfully report what the receptors processed. We prove this over and over by comparing what we experience with what mechanical manipulation of light suggests we would process if we had those photo receptive elements in our visual system.

Some people do not create green in that light.

the fact that you have to reformulate the sentence "some people can't see green" as "some people can't create green" should be a clue that your definition is color is not what most people think when they think of the word.

Regarding the clip, the way those glasses work is that they block a band of wavelengths near the peaks of M and L cone cells. This helps with a particular type of color blindness, where the those two peaks are near each other, by making it easier to distinguish each cell's activation. In other words, it doesn't help the person see a color that he didn't see before, just improves whatever color vision there was before.

Seeing, in human terms, is the experience of the external world created by the brain when energy of a certain frequency excites cells in the eye.

But bats use sound waves to make a representation of the world.

They "see" with their ears.

That guy in the clip is experiencing things he has never experienced before. Color.

 

[untermensche]

Experience is caused. Ergo color originates in light, thence in receptors, thence as derivative in mind.

If I hit a switch and turn on a red light does that mean my hand has information about "red"?

Why does energy hitting a switch in the eye that causes the brain to create the experience of red mean the energy is "red"?

Done here.

Avoiding valid philosophical points in a philosophy forum is not an argument.

Thought experiments are a valid form of argumentation.

 

[fromderinside]

Thought experiments are a valid form of argumentation.

I agree. If the the 'experiments' are valid. A hand and a red sensitive transmitter substance sensor aren't equivalent.

They are not equivalent because the switch (transmitter substance) arguably passes information of frequency up the visual sensory channel.

On the other hand - I'm having a bit of fun here - the hand cannot be argued to have information about the either light or frequency. For turning on a red light with one's hand the hand must have been informed that the switch was a light switch and that switch was the one that the for the red light.

Very different.

 

[Swammerdami]

You guys are quibbling about semantics. Include me out.

An appropriate mixture of light with spectral green color and light with spectral red color will give most humans a color sensation almost identical to spectral yellow. So is that yellow light? Or a mixture of red and green? (The red-green mix that produces the best yellow sensation may differ in vertebrates with a different set of photopsins from humans.) EITHER is a correct description depending on point of view. Any argument is just from people using the same word in different ways.

By the way, researchers have been able to create "colors" in human brain that cannot be produced by normal light input! For example, in a normal human it is impossible for light to stimulate the 'M' cones without also stimulating the 'L' or 'S' cones. But IIRC there is a way for researchers to stimulate the 'M' cones alone in a darkened room. Presto: a "color" never seen before. IIRC the subjects find this new color quite strange!

It's a general issue. For example, is the "rotten egg" smell identical to a Sulfur-Hydrogen bond? Or is it more proper to say the bond causes the smell in human brain? Either way, don't let semantics interfere with understanding. (BTW, the same rotten-egg smell can be achieved with some Boron-Hydrogen bonds: they have a vibration frequency close to that of Sulfur-Hydrogen.)

One could argue that the same dichotomy applies to "objective" senses like weight. The word "heavy" refers to different external weights for a weak kid and a strong man.


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

It's fun to watch those Enchroma YouTubes. (Most are better than the one linked above.) Something I've noted is that kids are full of laughter and joy the first time they put the glasses on. Middle-aged people quite often begin crying.

 

[fromderinside]

Seems to me that anything passing up the established channel will cause the result color. That it is different from normal confirms the problem with L and S cones when 'M' light is simulated. Once the overlap is established the ability to produce an 'M' response is established even though it won't be produced with normal light. That the nervous system has a wonderful way of filling in holes is established through such as masking and two sense motion stimulation as well as things seen that don't correspond to nature like the pipe-window illusion or filling in empty space.

A reread of your post leads to your saying that it matters not whether stimulation causes something or something is created by stimulation. Not true. Stimulation is central to whether something is caused as determined or whether the mind intervenes producing sensation and experience, whether there is material determinism or there is some intervening variable, dualism at work.

 

[untermensche]

Thought experiments are a valid form of argumentation.

I agree. If the the 'experiments' are valid. A hand and a red sensitive transmitter substance sensor aren't equivalent.

They are not equivalent because the switch (transmitter substance) arguably passes information of frequency up the visual sensory channel.

On the other hand - I'm having a bit of fun here - the hand cannot be argued to have information about the either light or frequency. For turning on a red light with one's hand the hand must have been informed that the switch was a light switch and that switch was the one that the for the red light.

Very different.

A switch is a switch.

And the receptors in the eye are just complex switches that can only be turned on by the right shaped hand, the right frequency of light.

Me hitting a switch and turning on a red light is no different from some energy that has nothing to do with red hitting a switch in the eye and causing the brain to produce red.

There is no information about color in EM energy. If a person did not have an evolved brain that produced red there is no way to get that person to understand red. Red isn't something in the world.

 

[untermensche]

You guys are quibbling about semantics. Include me out.

An appropriate mixture of light with spectral green color and light with spectral red color will give most humans a color sensation almost identical to spectral yellow. So is that yellow light? Or a mixture of red and green? (The red-green mix that produces the best yellow sensation may differ in vertebrates with a different set of photopsins from humans.) EITHER is a correct description depending on point of view. Any argument is just from people using the same word in different ways.

By the way, researchers have been able to create "colors" in human brain that cannot be produced by normal light input! For example, in a normal human it is impossible for light to stimulate the 'M' cones without also stimulating the 'L' or 'S' cones. But IIRC there is a way for researchers to stimulate the 'M' cones alone in a darkened room. Presto: a "color" never seen before. IIRC the subjects find this new color quite strange!

It's a general issue. For example, is the "rotten egg" smell identical to a Sulfur-Hydrogen bond? Or is it more proper to say the bond causes the smell in human brain? Either way, don't let semantics interfere with understanding. (BTW, the same rotten-egg smell can be achieved with some Boron-Hydrogen bonds: they have a vibration frequency close to that of Sulfur-Hydrogen.)

One could argue that the same dichotomy applies to "objective" senses like weight. The word "heavy" refers to different external weights for a weak kid and a strong man.


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

It's fun to watch those Enchroma YouTubes. (Most are better than the one linked above.) Something I've noted is that kids are full of laughter and joy the first time they put the glasses on. Middle-aged people quite often begin crying.

It is not mere semantics.

Color is a neural phenomena of evolved complex brains.

EM energy does not contain within it color information.

It is just something that causes the brain to create color in response to stimulation.

Like "pain" is not something in the world that could be objectively examined so is it with color. They are pure subjective experiences.

And molecules do not contain within them taste or smell information.

Those videos are absolute proof color is pure subjective experience whether people understand that or not.

Those grown hardened people are experiencing something most people take for granted for the first time. They are crying and laughing and dancing like children it is such an emotional thing.

 

[Swammerdami]

Seems to me that anything passing up the established channel will cause the result color. That it is different from normal confirms the problem with L and S cones when 'M' light is simulated. Once the overlap is established the ability to produce an 'M' response is established even though it won't be produced with normal light. That the nervous system has a wonderful way of filling in holes is established through such as masking and two sense motion stimulation as well as things seen that don't correspond to nature like the pipe-window illusion or filling in empty space.

This seems confused. What 'M channel' do you speak of? It may be superfluous here, but note that by the time color information leaves retina it has already been transformed. I don't know what names are generally given to these three color signals, so I'll use names for closely related signals in a computerized method like JFIF.)
(M + L) + {Rods|Night} --> Luminance (Y)
(L - M) --> C_R
(2S - (M+L)) --> C_B

A reread of your post leads to your saying that it matters not whether stimulation causes something or something is created by stimulation. Not true. Stimulation is central to whether something is caused as determined or whether the mind intervenes producing sensation and experience, whether there is material determinism or there is some intervening variable, dualism at work.

You're reading much more into my post than was ever intended.

I would ask each participant to define "color." I don't think the debate is about philosophy, physics, or biology. I think you're all just interpreting the same word in different ways.

 

[untermensche]

I have said it.

Color: A subjective experience created by the brain when the receptors in the eye are excited by certain frequencies of energy.

We call that energy "light" because it is the small part of the EM spectrum that excites our receptor cells and thus causes our brains to create what we call the experience of vision.

 

[untermensche]

Any question about color is a question about experience and consciousness.

Looking at the mere stimulus for color production by the brain is not looking at color.

It is looking at a colorless stimulus.

 

[fromderinside]

Yours

I have said it.

Color: A subjective experience created by the brain when the receptors in the eye are excited by certain frequencies of energy.

We call that energy "light" because it is the small part of the EM spectrum that excites our receptor cells and thus causes our brains to create what we call the experience of vision.

Mine

Color: the quality of an object or substance with respect to light reflected by the object, usually determined visually by measurement of hue, saturation, and brightness of the reflected light; saturation or chroma; hue.

My preferred definition is objective, applicable to any eye that can respond to it and any thing that one can measure light effects from it. Yours is restricted to the brain of beings who have language, humans. Coincidentally your definition fits under my definition. IOW you are way too restrictive, ergo the need for pronouncing it subjective experience. Most things that have photopigment sensors respond to color one way or another and color exists in things that differentially reflect light.

Thank you Swammerdami.

 

[untermensche]

The reflective property of an object is not color in any way. It is a feature of an object but no information about color is contained in the energy that reflects off objects.

The information about color is in the brain.

The eye is a switch.

It is an error in reasoning to conclude that because a brain creates color when some energy throws a switch in the eye the energy itself has information about color in it.

It s as bad as thinking my finger has information about red when it throws a switch on the wall and a red light turns on.

 

[fromderinside]

See. Already back to his party line.

I use Shannon's definition for information. It doesn't require the presence of a human to have it. Since there are differences in what light falls on the object and what light is reflected from the object there is information about color in the object.

 

[untermensche]

You bail because you know there is no way for you to demonstrate this bad idea that EM energy of a certain frequency contains color information within it.

I fully understand.

 

[untermensche]

The energy in the whole spectrum varies by wavelength only. It all moves at the same speed. None of it is colored.

A small part of it triggers an eye to cause a brain to create color.

Color is created by a brain. Like pain and taste and smell.

The stimulus that causes color creation contains no information about color.

The stimulus has variation. That is all it has.

It is an anthropocentric delusion that because human brains create color when a certain wavelength of energy hits the human eye that the energy itself has color information.

 

[fromderinside]

View attachment 32575

The energy in the whole spectrum varies by wavelength only. It all moves at the same speed. None of it is colored.

A small part of it triggers an eye to cause a brain to create color.

Color is created by a brain. Like pain and taste and smell.

The stimulus that causes color creation contains no information about color.

The stimulus has variation. That is all it has.

It is an anthropocentric delusion that because human brains create color when a certain wavelength of energy hits the human eye that the energy itself has color information.

Wow. A tiny spec of EM spectrum is visible. And you call it anthropomorphic delusion? I'm pretty sure that those things that take energy from specific visible spectrum to make usable energy for growth and reproduction are really just minds creating color experiences. Yes growth and reproduction are experiences, material, measurable experiences.

The first thing you need to do is to support the idea that there is a mind rather than just a brain carrying out material processes. Your idea of consciousness also need justification. I can and have justified that wakefulness arises in the pons, probably from the reticular formation there aided by cells in locus coeruleus. You haven't substantiated consciousness through experiment, defined other than in subjective terms what it may be. You have a lot of work to do.