COLOUR

[untermensche]

Yes, I can. First google hit:

View attachment 32786

This is probably marketing material and not an actual view through the enchroma glasses. But according to you, there is no color information in the image, so how do you explain that your brain "creates" a different experience for the third picture compared to the first one? If there is no color information in the photons that hit your eyes, where does the information come from? Why is it that we can be pretty sure that we'd describe the differences in the pictures in the same way, i.e. that the flowers are redder, instead of each of us having totally different and maybe conflicting experiences?

Are you claiming the same information is hitting your eye from all those pictures?

The fact that you experience color is not in any way evidence that there is color information in some energy exciting a cell in your eye.

The energy is just a stimulus for the brain to create the visual experience. And color is created as a part of that experience.

Colorless energy causes a brain to create the experience of color.

Why do you think this is impossible?

The brain creates the experience of smell from molecules that do not have any smell.

 

[untermensche]

And it is anthropocentric nonsense to conclude the energy must have color because the experience does.

There is nothing anthropocentric about that. The effect can be measured objectively with various instruments. If anything, you are being anthropocentric by thinking that color is something that's concocted by human brains.

The stimulus can be measured. Color can't be measured in any way. Color is an experience and experiences are subjective and unmeasurable.

We know what stimulates the brain to create the experience of color. We know about the stimulus. But the stimulus is not color. It merely has variation that can be detected by sensor cells in the eye.

If sensor cells can recognize variation they can respond with variation.

And the brain can create a different experience of color depending on what variety of signal is sent from the eye.

It is anthropocentric nonsense to say that because you experience color there must be color information out there when in reality all that is needed is a stimulus with detectable variation by living cells.

 

[untermensche]

But for some arbitrary reason you are not applying the same logic to anything else except color. Observe the letter "o" in the word "color". You would say that it's a circle (or roughly that shape). You wouldn't say that it's a shapeless object that creates shape in your brain. And you could rationalize it with exactly the same logic that you use to rationalize that color isn't real. But why the double standard?

The letter "o" is a human created symbol.

Symbols can be created because humans can recognize shape.

But shape is not like color at all.

The organism that makes a better approximation of shape as an experience will have a greater chance of survival then the organism that makes a poorer approximation.

Over time the ability to approximate shape will get better and better.

Color is not an approximation of anything. But our experience of shape is just a very close approximation of the shape of the object gained from hundreds of millions of years of organisms approximating shape and the best approximators having a better chance to survive.

We can recognize symbols like "o" merely as a side effect of being able to approximate shape very well.

Talking about our approximation of shape and the creation of color are talking about two different things that occur in different parts of the brain.

 

[fromderinside]

That you need to preserve 'experience' is the only reason you make these claims.

Instruments detect and generate figures telling us there are specific frequencies of light are being reflected off the images that consistently indicate the same thing. Bees respond to frequencies of light to find and recover nectar. All you are doing is saying humans provide a label, name, for this set and other sets of frequencies.

Then you call humans naming this set of frequencies by a name, color, so why not accept that the detectors that actually respond to this set of frequencies as an entity as color. You don't seem able to differentiate labelling from experiencing so why not just accept that what the instruments are reporting for this set of frequencies as color also. You have not shown humans do anything unique for you to set up this artificial difference.

Deer don't eat bark, they eat leaves. leaves reflect a set of frequencies that humans call green. Why not say that deer see green since they also have brains capable of reporting these frequencies of light and the selectively eat objects that do reflect this light.

If a method works for one its should work for another. There is no need to invent 'color experience' just because humans respond to particular frequencies of light and name it a color. Saying no isn't proving your point. Its proving you are hung up on the specialness of the ability to name such things. No more than that.

 

[untermensche]

If you can read these words you are experiencing them.

Experience is primary and without doubt. There is no doubt I am experiencing red when I experience red.

All else can be doubted. Your existence can be doubted by me. The existence of the all things can be doubted.

The fact that I am that which experiences cannot be doubted.

I experience therefore I exist.

You have no reasoning around this fact. You cannot dispute it.

 

[untermensche]

Then you call humans naming this set of frequencies by a name, color,......

The experience was named long before anybody knew about invisible waves of energy.

You confuse the stimulus with the response.

You think the hand must have information about blue because it turned on a blue light.

Your reasoning is bad.

Waves of energy have no color.

Color is an experience. You don't need to know anything about energy or wavelengths to paint a landscape.

You just need a brain able to create the experience of color.

You can't show me any information about color in a wave of energy. There is no information about color in it. The energy is just a hand hitting a switch in the eye causing the brain to create the experience of color.

Color, pain, smell, taste, sound. These only exist as experiences. They have a stimulus but the stimulus has nothing to do with color, pain, smell, taste or sound. Evolved brains create the experiences.

 

[fromderinside]

Not necessarily. When I speed read I get the gist of what the author is writing, not the words per se. So what do you call that perception? When I turn on the light I get a growing perception of where I am. When I observe the frame and bar illusion i perceive a bar passing through the frame. All perceptions. Experiences? I think not.

I doubt you exist. Should I doubt that?

As I just wrote I can dispute what you present.

Unfortunately we now are faced with a duality of energy, waves and particles. We've even developed a material theory for this called quantum theory. I don't see either I see what my senses report, color. That we see is not in doubt. What is in doubt is reality since we cannot perceive it or even conceive of what it is because we are not equipped to do so.

Those facts don't diminish observation that we operate in this world fairly effectively. You have landed the 'explanation' of 'experience', giving us the example of color which you claim is not real. Its a position you apparently can't defend. I suggest you move on.

Let me repeat most plants reflect green is material proof that what you argue is wrong.

 

[untermensche]

Your plants don't reflect green.

That is a misunderstanding.

They reflect colorless energy, invisible energy, that causes a chemical reaction in your retinal cells that causes your brain to create the experience of green.

You make this anthropocentric error over and over. All of experience is a creation of the brain, not something in the world. You can't experience the world in any way. You only have access to the experiences your brain creates. With your mind.

You can't show me any information about color in energy waves. There is none.

Just like there is no information about blue in the hand that turns on a blue light.

 

[fromderinside]

The anthropocentric error being made here is by you untermensche. You take frequencies reflected in the green part of the visible light spectrum as something only humans can experience. That is not correct. Unless you admit human consciousness is after the fact you'll never be able to reconcile your position with what actually is the material state of affairs in humans.

What visible light that is reflected is used by animals other than man to signal food, nourishment, life itself. Other reflected frequencies signal to birds and bees the presence of nectar, or worm, or rodent, or just a guidepost to other stuff living things need and develop sense for recognizing.

Some might even treat those captured frequencies of visible light as color except in name since most animals don't report speech or language. I'm pretty sure most mammals actually experience some color because most I've tested react to it differentially.

No sir. anthropocentric is your take on visible light. Remember most living things with eyes on this planet live experiencing the same features we experience. Their experience is probably not what is our experience but it is operable experience else it wouldn't be experienced and used.

Whether it is through infrared sensors in the noses of snakes four photopigment eyes of raptors, or just two or three pigment eyes of most other mammals light is used to distinguish things used by mammals and agreeably dinosaurs, reptiles, amphibians, fishes, many insects, some mollusks, etc.

I will concede that what others see, experience, is not the same experience most human tribes see. But what most living things that live experience, in their own way light, maybe even color. I'm pretty sure that among vertebrates most certainly after the rise of bony fish have some level of consciousness, self, and therefore experience.

 

[untermensche]

You take frequencies reflected in the green part of the visible light spectrum as something only humans can experience.

Utter nonsense. You can't find me saying this anywhere.

But at least you now acknowledge that color is an experience.

The ability of evolving brains to create the experience of color after being stimulated by colorless energy predates humans.

Energy waves have no information about color. You can't show me any color information in them.

Just like there is no information about blue in the hand that turns on a blue light.

You make the anthropocentric error over and over. You experience color so you think the color is out there somewhere.

It isn't. Waves of colorless energy are out there. Color exists only as an experience. Only as a personal subjective experience.

 

[fromderinside]

It isn't. Waves of colorless energy are out there. Color exists only as an experience. Only as a personal subjective experience.

you keep banging up against the same wall. Others use bands of physical light differentially in the environment depending on what elements of that light is available to them. If visible light were only just light waves, if light did not have quantum duality then every thing which senses light would respond to every instance of that reflected light. That is not the case. Remember there are waves and photons. Waves may have frequency but photons have specific energy.

 

[untermensche]

It isn't. Waves of colorless energy are out there. Color exists only as an experience. Only as a personal subjective experience.

you keep banging up against the same wall. Others use bands of physical light differentially in the environment depending on what elements of that light is available to them. If visible light were only just light waves, if light did not have quantum duality then every thing which senses light would respond to every instance of that reflected light. That is not the case. Remember there are waves and photons. Waves may have frequency but photons have specific energy.

It is you banging your head in blindness.

There is no color information in waves of EM energy.

That is an absurd notion.

There is energy. The energy is real but it isn't colored. Organisms can be stimulated by the energy. You can heat up your dinner with the energy.

Like a hand turning on a switch. Your naive nonsense that the hand that turns on the blue light has information about blue is anthropocentric blindness.

 

[fromderinside]

Are you saying a photon of energy x is no different than a photon of energy z? If so you are about 130 years out of date. Those x, z, differences in information are used by living things and nonliving things one actively the other passively. The difference is living things change through evolution arriving at maximum realizable states of entropy while non-living things change pretty mush IAC with the rules entropy. Its the difference between a rock responding to gravity and a human responding to many more forces near optimally.

 

[untermensche]

Are you saying a photon of energy x is no different than a photon of energy z? If so you are about 130 years out of date. Those x, z, differences in information are used by living things and nonliving things one actively the other passively. The difference is living things change through evolution arriving at maximum realizable states of entropy while non-living things change pretty mush IAC with the rules entropy. Its the difference between a rock responding to gravity and a human responding to many more forces near optimally.

The energy has variation.

That is all it has.

It has no information about color.

You think color exists in the world merely because the experience of color exists in the mind.

It is blindness.

 

[fromderinside]

Tell me how do you get from energy varies in proportion to frequency while at the same time maintain that even though light has variation that comes as energy levels corresponding to light frequency, that light photons (particles) are not different in color or something because it is a fact that photons come at energies corresponding to every frequency of light.

Given photons are particles and photons comes at every frequency of light suggests to me you missed something. Looks to me that your argument falls flat on its face. Each photon at each energy level is a unique particle. Photon one at the energy level A is not the same as photon two at energy level B. It is as sane as any thing else to call that difference color since it reflects the difference uniquely.

Whether any other organism experiences the same sensation as you or I, is moot, not on point. The issue is whether light varies in effect on matter from low to high frequency and does it do so in a way with which matter treats it differently than does light at another frequency. It's pretty clear that it does.

Consequently your whole argument about experience be put aside. Since the intervention of this variable explains nothing it is best to dismiss it and resort to tools that do capture the nature of light interacting with matter such as those underlying physics.

You position fails to explain why color and it fails to capture the effects of visible light on matter.

 

[untermensche]

Tell me how do you get from energy varies in proportion to frequency while at the same time maintain that even though light has variation that comes as energy levels corresponding to light frequency, that light photons (particles) are not different in color or something because it is a fact that photons come at energies corresponding to every frequency of light.

Are you joking?

The variation in energy level is detected because a variety of chemical reactions take place based on the energy level.

The cells in the retina detect variation of energy within a very small band.

Period.

There is no information about color out there.

 

[fromderinside]

Let me repeat. Every photon possesses the energy of light at a specific frequency. Light energy increases with frequency but photons are particles that only carry a specific energy associated with a particular frequency.

Therefore photons come in the range of energys of visible light and, as it turns out, the energies of all other radiation as well. One photon one energy level.

Deal with it. Energy change, different photon energies, exciting photosensitive molecules is color in the visible light spectrum. The nervous system serving the light sensitive network evolved after the photo sensitive molecule was incorporated in to the sensory system. Light, not mind, signal color. The sensation of particular light evolves into a coherent net of sensing a region in the environment else the organism becomes extinct.

 

[untermensche]

Let me repeat. Every photon possesses the energy of light at a specific frequency. Light energy increases with frequency but photons are particles that only carry a specific energy associated with a particular frequency.

Therefore photons come in the range of energys of visible light and, as it turns out, the energies of all other radiation as well. One photon one energy level.

Deal with it. Energy change, different photon energies, exciting photosensitive molecules is color in the visible light spectrum. The nervous system serving the light sensitive network evolved after the photo sensitive molecule was incorporated in to the sensory system. Light, not mind, signal color. The sensation of particular light evolves into a coherent net of sensing a region in the environment else the organism becomes extinct.

Photons possess energy.

They do not possess "light" or color information.

Light is an experience humans have after their eyes are stimulated by certain frequencies of energy.

The energy is out there.

The light is in the mind.

This is proof of mind.

 

[fromderinside]

Confusing.

You acknowledge photons carry energy of every frequency of light.

Yet you omit knowing that photons of lower frequency light have less energy than those of higher frequencies of light. That leads me to believe you think that lower frequencies of light have fewer photons than those of higher frequency when, in fact there is no difference in the number or size of the photons at every energy level.

Low frequency photons have less energy per photon than do higher frequency photons.

These facts have been demonstrated in how molecules act when they emit photons for any reason such as when the matter produces coherent light. A 'red' laser photon has less energy than does a green or blue laser photon.

If is from experiments such as these it is apparent that different light frequencies are also seen as demonstrating this fact as radiating different colors.

There is really no scientific proof of mind. That is just a convenient argument to make without having to provide any independent material justification.

If I were to take your argument seriously I'd conclude that color is mind which is ridiculous. Color is a sensation derived by the processing input of light by the nervous system. A leaf is green because it reflects those frequencies of light. Any devise that responds to visible light would probably report the greenness of leaf as well. However humans need to use that information to find and take advantage of what that information signals.

... and according to you we do that because we're special.

 

[fromderinside]

FYI

What exactly is a photon? Definition, properties, facts https://www.zmescience.com/science/what-is-photon-definition-04322/

Photon properties

The basic properties of photons are:

• They have zero mass and rest energy. They only exist as moving particles.
• They are elementary particles despite lacking rest mass.
• They have no electric charge.
• They are stable.
• They are spin-1 particles which makes them bosons.
• They carry energy and momentum which are dependent on the frequency.
• They can have interactions with other particles such as electrons, such as the Compton effect.
• They can be destroyed or created by many natural processes, for instance when radiation is absorbed or emitted.
• When in empty space, they travel at the speed of light.