• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

COLOUR

Yes.

No color information in a photon.

Just energy.

What is called "light" is that small band on the EM Spectrum, that all travels at the same speed, that excites cells in the eye.

Light in not out there. Light exists in the mind only.

Invisible energy is out there.

Light is an anthropocentric concept.
 
Yeah. Except that to which living things are sensitive is called visible light which it's particles are energy dependent on radiation frequency. There you go, frequency which varies with energy which photons carry.

What does 'same speed' mean untermenche relative to this discussion? If you want to include speed then we have a situation where the relative speed of an attribute of light, frequency/energy, is contained within the differences in frequency treated as distance within the photon.

However what's at issue are it's energy that photons transport which varies with frequency not speed. So we've got photon energy varies with frequency and color varies with frequency that travels in vacuum at a very high constant speed. We unpack that and find information by manipulating light by taking advantage of it's tendency to spread IAW frequency when we pass it through a prism.

It's really a bit disingenuous to label something we name for convenience as anthropomorphic just because we can name it. It's a property of light shared with all matter whether you break it down as frequency/energy or we call the composite color. Any light detector sensitive to light energy will produce results as the same function of frequency/energy.

It really doesn't matter what we name it because we know it carries information, energy, about frequency of the visible light. Think of such rendering akin to passing sound through a filter, the cochlear nucleus, that separates spectral components by energy/frequency.

In both instances contingent properties become available for use and analysis. Nothing is created by a person 'experiencing' it.
 
fromderinside said:
Yeah. Except that to which living things are sensitive is called visible light which it's particles are energy dependent on radiation frequency. There you go, frequency which varies with energy which photons carry.
Click to expand...

Yes.

And the hand has four fingers and a thumb. It has bones and ligaments and tendons and nerves and fascia.

But it has no information about blue.

But it can turn on a blue light.

Energy has many features. Wavelength and speed.

But no information about color. Just detectable variation.

Energy can excite cells in an eye and cause a brain to create the experience of color though.

Like a hand turning on a blue light.
 
Actually photons carry information about energy at frequency which is something very important to the notion of color, central to it actually. Leaves are green regardless of whether there is a seeing organism there to see it, just as sound is there even thought here is no ear to hear it. Any statement otherwise must lead to criticism of one being anthropomorphic about things. Molecules move, act, things exist.
 
fromderinside said:
Actually photons carry information about energy at frequency which is something very important to the notion of color, central to it actually. Leaves are green regardless of whether there is a seeing organism there to see it, just as sound is there even thought here is no ear to hear it. Any statement otherwise must lead to criticism of one being anthropomorphic about things. Molecules move, act, things exist.
Click to expand...

Leaves have outer surfaces that reflect energy at a frequency that a human eye is capable of reacting to.

The outer surfaces exist without something to experience them. The energy reflected exists without anything to experience it.

But green does not.

There is no green without something capable of experiencing green.

Green is only an experience.

Energy is not.
 
A cut on your hand is not pain.

You are not experiencing anything real.

Pain is not out in the world anywhere.

It is in the mind.

You can cut your leg and I can give you morphine and there is no pain.

Because the pain is not in the world. It is in your mind.

Same with color.

Your refusal to admit the brain constructs all experience whole is insanity.
 
So tell me about pain. I'm sure the memory of Drs Naff and Kenshalo will be interested. Oooh. Maybe you've read Dr. Allen Chatt's dissertation? You don't know who they were? So why are you spouting? As for seeing color I'm sure Dr. WAH Rushton (visual purple) would like you to explain your theories to his ghost. I studied under and with these people. I'm pretty sure they knew more then than you know now. You are getting tedious.
 
So now your argument is that some dead people don't like my ideas?

That is a bit desperate.

Pain is an experience.

A broken leg is not pain. It is painful.

Energy is not purple.

That is laughable.

You have run out of gas.
 
Sorry, but I find this "debate" pointless. You are both right. You're just using different definitions of color; or, if you prefer an old parable, blindly grabbing two different parts of the same elephant. It was OK at first ... but the debate goes on with a wider range of arguments and analogies, all irrelevant because you've started with different perspectives.

I think color is fascinating. It has plenty of non-epistemological aspects to discuss. For example, untermensche distinguished between a photon's energy and its wavelength. That got me thinking: Is it the energy or the wavelength that causes coloration?

I think that paints, dyes and the cones of vertebrate retina respond to the energy of a photon. Chlorophyll is green because its magnesium atoms react to (and therefore absorb) red and blue light — those photonic energies match transition energies in the magnesium's orbitals. Is that correct?

Iridescence, on the other hand, is a response to wavelength: photons are reflected (at a particular angle) when their waves match a geometric distance. Are there other cases where a color* is caused by wavelength rather than energy?

* - ETA: I'm using "color" to refer specifically to a photon stream, not the "experience" of its observer. :)
 
Swammerdami said:
Sorry, but I find this "debate" pointless. You are both right. You're just using different definitions of color; or, if you prefer an old parable, blindly grabbing two different parts of the same elephant. It was OK at first ... but the debate goes on with a wider range of arguments and analogies, all irrelevant because you've started with different perspectives.

I think color is fascinating. It has plenty of non-epistemological aspects to discuss. For example, untermensche distinguished between a photon's energy and its wavelength. That got me thinking: Is it the energy or the wavelength that causes coloration?

I think that paints, dyes and the cones of vertebrate retina respond to the energy of a photon. Chlorophyll is green because its magnesium atoms react to (and therefore absorb) red and blue light — those photonic energies match transition energies in the magnesium's orbitals. Is that correct?

Iridescence, on the other hand, is a response to wavelength: photons are reflected (at a particular angle) when their waves match a geometric distance. Are there other cases where a color* is caused by wavelength rather than energy?

* - ETA: I'm using "color" to refer specifically to a photon stream, not the "experience" of its observer. :)
Click to expand...

It is not right to say color exists within energy.

It does not.

There is no color in energy. It merely has the capacity to create a chemical reaction because it is energy.

Color is an experience a brain creates when the eye is excited by invisible colorless energy.

Chlorophyll is not green.

Humans experience it capriciously as green. There is no green in it.

Green exists in the mind.
 
The proper way to describe the external world is to say: I experience that grass as green.

It is not proper to say: That grass has green as a property. It does not. And neither does the invisible colorless energy that bounces off it.
 
Yet if one specifies the appropriate lighting environment and the attributes of the item illuminated one can a priori determine the color that will issue upon being so lighted. Color!

It is physical. It's just that character of it's physicality must be fully specified. However, having done that one has color without inserting brain or mind in the description. That is the consequence of the validity of actual color science. It is not an accident that brains can appropriately process illuminated object through ones visual apparatus. One does not need a subjective thing like 'experience' to explain the existence of color. 'Experience' would not be possible if there were not actual physical basis for color, whatever.

it'll take a serious read but it's in there.



Color Realism and Color Science https://web.mit.edu/abyrne/www/ColorRealism.html

Abstract: The target article is an attempt to make some progress on the problem of color realism. Are objects colored? And what is the nature of the color properties? We defend the view that physical objects (for instance, tomatoes, radishes, and rubies) are colored, and that colors are physical properties, specifically types of reflectance. This is probably a minority opinion, at least among color scientists. Textbooks frequently claim that physical objects are not colored, and that the colors are "subjective" or "in the mind." The article has two other purposes: first, to introduce an interdisciplinary audience to some distinctively philosophical tools that are useful in tackling the problem of color realism and, second, to clarify the various positions and central arguments in the debate.

The first part explains the problem of color realism and makes some useful distinctions. These distinctions are then used to expose various confusions that often prevent people from seeing that the issues are genuine and difficult, and that the problem of color realism ought to be of interest to anyone working in the field of color science. The second part explains the various leading answers to the problem of color realism, and (briefly) argues that all views other than our own have serious difficulties or are unmotivated. The third part explains and motivates our own view, that colors are types of reflectances, and defends it against objections made in the recent literature that are often taken as fatal.
Click to expand...

THE LANGUAGE OF COLOR https://art4healing.org/special-rep...fyOIOX8S6Cz7LkZRAeN33hPbvkaBcEvBoC-7AQAvD_BwE

What is Color?
Before we discuss the effects of color, let’s discuss what color “is” – at the core, color is energy! In fact, energy surrounds you in various forms all the time. The universe is full of electromagnetic radiation, from high energy gamma rays to low energy acoustical waves. Visible light is simply a portion of this spectrum of radiation that humans have evolved to see. (It’s actually a frequency between about 400 and 700 Terahertz!)
Click to expand...

Exploratory Experimentation: Goethe, Land, and ColorTheory https://bf49b73e-a-16728058-s-sites...oKe_Wkwig71Okp3fzz5KKTk2zyq_o=&attredirects=0

This last is presented to give the reader an understanding of the extent and breadth to which empirical study can range.

None of the above requires one to resort to mysticism, or any intervening variable for the existence of color. Very important if one is actually trying to understand what is being talked about.

There are all sorts of theories explaining color as an experience but none explain what is an experience. Very important if one is really trying to understand.

If one goes to the philosophical paper one finds the discomfort that comes with pushing off meaning leaving one with just denial of substance. the physics paper on the other hand ties stuff together in ways that make it possible for one to come away with operable conclusions.

As yourself "can I do anything with what I've been presented."
 
untermensche said:
The proper way to describe the external world is to say: I experience that grass as green.

It is not proper to say: That grass has green as a property. It does not. And neither does the invisible colorless energy that bounces off it.
Click to expand...

untermensche — Astronomers speak of "red shift" even though AFAIK no human has ever looked at the night sky and thought "I experience more redness from that galaxy there." Should astronomers find a better term?

Even worse, signal processing engineers speak of "Blue noise" or "Dithering with Blue Noise" even though no blueness whatsoever, in your sense, is involved. Should they find a better term?
 
Swammerdami said:
untermensche said:
The proper way to describe the external world is to say: I experience that grass as green.

It is not proper to say: That grass has green as a property. It does not. And neither does the invisible colorless energy that bounces off it.
Click to expand...

untermensche — Astronomers speak of "red shift" even though AFAIK no human has ever looked at the night sky and thought "I experience more redness from that galaxy there." Should astronomers find a better term?

Even worse, signal processing engineers speak of "Blue noise" or "Dithering with Blue Noise" even though no blueness whatsoever, in your sense, is involved. Should they find a better term?
Click to expand...

People can say inaccurate things if they want to. They can call it a sun rise even though it is really the earth turning.

But the proper way to explain what is going on is to say I experience the grass as green

There is no green or red or blue out there.
 
You really need to be brazen to say that a star sensor read as red is not red when the temperature and the maximum frequencies being radiated and also prescribed by energy of the radiating object to be accurately described by its sensed color. There is no way one can experience red unless there is material evidence of energy designated as red. The name, experience, cannot precede the sense. No conscious invention. If one is conscious of something some thing sensed provides evidence for that to be part of consciousness. Whole cloth not permitted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom