COLOUR

[untermensche]

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.

No sensor saw "red". It saw an amount of invisible colorless energy that when it hits the human eye cause the brain to create the experience of red.

We know what wavelengths are associated with subjective reports of color. There are various forms of color blindness so all subjective reports are not exactly the same.

And when we know the wavelengths associated with certain subjective reports we can build sensors that respond to energy with those wavelengths.

The sensor is responding to a wavelength, not a color.

Color is an experience. Sensors don't have experiences.

 

[fromderinside]

So much confusion in the preservation of subjective second hand interpretations of what is materially going on.

The sensor passed the information about red to the nervous system. The being saw 'red' because that's all the information the being had been passed. Whatever processing the evolving nervous systems had was of what information the receptors had passed to the nervous system. To be useful, fit, the nervous system adapted processing to what information the sensors provided which was about the energy coming from whatever the being was gazing upon.

There were three things being processed, from where the information was coming - the place and orientation of a particular receptor and those around it that were responding similarly the energy information - receptor outputs - transduced photons carrying that information - and that the information was coming from visual objects - the result of the particular process the receptors performed - all went into weighing development of upstream sensory processes definitely is not the eye seeing anything.

It is merely communicating consistent information about place, orientation, and extent of red energy level photons, to an evolving brain that adapted to process these bits of data more effectively in the processes for reporting what to make of them serving fitness.

The brain didn't create anything. Perception is the brain adapted to report red energy of a particular sort, being input from thus and so orientation, then subsequently processed and verbally interpreted to be red light given the information available.

Receptors evolved to to better report red energy, where, and when, it was arriving, the information causing the brain to develop and report what was being processed was energy signally the color red. There is no experience produced, what is received is transduced, reproduced, and interpreted biologically permitting a talking being to develop and produce appropriate language reporting what has been observed by visual receptors is energy from a red energy reflecting or producing source.

It is subjective items 'experience' and 'consciousness' which are the illusions humans use to self reference what they 'see' and roam among as talking behaving beings. Such terms are of little use to scientists beyond doing exploratory experiments - See Goethe et al who would have you believe what we saw was interpreted as frequency when it is actually processed energy being reported which is classified as frequency for convenience and similarity with acoustic and positional sense reporting- in the very advanced behavior of doing science.

What I've been doing is reinterpreting subjective argument into objective argument suitable to being used in material experiments. Subjective topics are never science nor are subjective terms. The only arena where one can produce operable results is the material world.

Isn't it obvious the main reason philosophy keeps failing as a vehicle for scientific endeavors is it is subjective. However I thank philosophers for bringing us objective, materialistic, deterministic science.

 

[untermensche]

The sensor passed the information about red to the nervous system.

The hand hit a switch.

This sent electricity to a blue light and the blue light turned on.

The hand had no information about blue.

A sensory cell in the eye is excited by invisible colorless energy.

A neural signal is then sent to the brain and the brain responds reflexively by making an experience of color.

You claim there is information about color in some tiny band of EM energy.

You have yet to show me any information about color in it.

There is no information about color in it. It is energy. It can create a chemical reaction in retinal cells.

That's all.

Is the energy color or is a chemical reaction in retinal cells color?

 

[fromderinside]

Actually since many switches in the same channel sent many pieces of information into the computer which had rudimentary programs for organizing such data the arriving data reinforces a developing organization of color and space which comes to be interpreted as being similar to the default response properties of the receptors providing several paths to a response of red. Experience becomes the learning of default responses which have linked their behavior to specific energy and energy organization. Red becomes the highest probability choice. One doesn't experience red one experiences choices that indicate red as most likely.

in every instance there is a link from receptor properties and signal properties to learned response. Never is there the conscious inventing or the human experiencing red. Such are subjective derivatives of what has been received and processed from the material world.

If you want to go through how neurons tune and identify and how repetition and evolution determine what is to be presented we can continue.

I really don't think we need to do that though.

As to your last, red is the energy of photons coming from thermal nuclear radiation at certain temperature. After all it is from such that we find the solution to frequency-temperature radiation. It is from that that scientists have come to the conclusion that reflected light is what primarily interacts with our sensors. It would be a bit strange if we only got color form star appearance. Most of what we see with our equipment is reflected light although stars do confirm color temperature frequency relations for photons.

 

[untermensche]

Is the energy color or is a chemical reaction in retinal cells color?

Put up or shut up.

Show me the specific color information contained in a photon.

I tire of your anthropocentric lunacy. Over and over.

Show me the information you claim is there.

Don't bore me with talk about reactions.

Show me the color information in the photon you claim is there.

 

[fromderinside]

Depending on what you are asking both are color. Energy is color and the material reacting to energy is also color.

I guess you can shut up now.

The color information in protons derives from the temperature of the energy source that emitted the proton. Higher temperature/color the source higher energy/color of the photons emitted.

The only anthropomorphic one here is the one who keeps saying the mind creates a subjective color experience with no supporting evidence ever.

 

[untermensche]

Depending on what you are asking both are color. Energy is color and the material reacting to energy is also color.

I guess you can shut up now.

The color information in protons derives from the temperature of the energy source that emitted the proton. Higher temperature/color the source higher energy/color of the photons emitted.

The only anthropomorphic one here is the one who keeps saying the mind creates a subjective color experience with no supporting evidence ever.

If energy is color where is the color information in it?

The brain does not need any external information about color to create an experience of color.

It creates the experience of pain from information from nerve cells that has nothing to do with pain.

Show me the color information in the photon.

Where is it?

You suffer from a silly delusion.

You think because you experience color it MUST be out there.

If it is out there prove it.

Show me the color information contained in energy. Where is it?

In other words the only thing you should answer with is a talk about energy and the color information you know is in it.

 

[fromderinside]

From my language to your language. Here it is in your language. Your experience of what takes place when light passes through a prism.

https://www.khanacademy.org/science...n-of-light-in-prism/v/newton-prism-experiment

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAAFLXlevOY

Oh, wait. These are physics experiments.

No. I'm not going to post why we know that light radiation is photons.

I fully expect a lot of hand waving from you now.

Please do tell me that physics is fiction. I need a good laugh this morning.

 

[untermensche]

You are laughable. Thanks.

Let's explore how Sir Issac Newton experimentally proved that white light is made of all the colours of the rainbow.

Newton showed that the stimulus for white is made up of the stimulus of the other colors. Not the stimulus for the experience of black however.

So you think the light has color information?

So some of it is information about blue and some of it information about red.

But when the information about blue is combined with the information about red and yellow and green and orange and indigo and purple all the information about blue and red and yellow and orange and green and purple and indigo magically goes away and we now have information about white.

This magically appearing and disappearing information is an interesting phenomena you believe in.

What this says is white was likely the first visual experience. White is a distinct color. It is not all the other colors combined. Try to make white from colored paint. White was probably opposed with black. Black is a distinct color too. And this ability to create white from all the information in the visual spectrum is something that has remained as the ability to create colors from pieces of the visual spectrum later evolved. Randomly.

 

[fromderinside]

You have never run a masking experiment have you.

Adding noise can cover/mask information demonstrably present and provide information that is covered, even missing, during intelligent communication that the human is able to recover filling in that intelligence that is otherwise missing (continuity) or masked.

When I intersperse a color, say red, with time segments of white light I can get the observer to count the marker, red, that is presented during every interval, but masked or missing during the white interval.

Masking/continuity works works with light as well. White, the combination of all colors masks or provides information about the existence of individual individual colors. No magic in the above experiments. Just physics.

So what are you missing in the statement that white is a combination of all colors?

Yes white is a color as is black. Just as noise is a sound. Black and silence can be simply the absence of physical stimuli. That does not make it other than a color/sound. It is the starting point for there being color/energy/frequency/sound. Spin a multicolored wheel and you get white. What's your problem?

I see you as on a precipice that doesn't exist yet I know you are there in all your ignorance.

Think of things this way Sound/light and absence of sound/light are all information and humans process information. Its not a matter of presence or absence since both are information.

Good night and good luck.

 

[untermensche]

We can do color experiments with humans because invisible colorless energy is experienced by humans as color.

But no color experiment with a human can demonstrate the energy causing a chemical reaction in the eye has color information in it.

You would have to find that information by looking at the energy itself.

So what are you missing in the statement that white is a combination of all colors?

White is the experience a person has when there is a lot of the visual spectrum hitting the eye.

But what happened to the information about blue when the person experiences white?

You claim the information about blue is there.

What happens to the information about blue when I experience white from it?

I either believe your magic that information about color just comes and goes or understand that color is a reflexive creation of the brain when invisible colorless energy causes a chemical reaction and there is no color information in the energy.

 

[fromderinside]

Let's start with your first statement. It is false the energy is invisible or colorless. Photic energy of any composition in the visible spectrum is visible as the aggregate color it is. It is visible spectrum photic energy color. It follows normal physical rules for energy. A combination of colors, specific energies are perceived as the combination of those energies. If a complete set of individual receptors are all stimulated by energy at the same time the only informative conclusion a processing system can reach is that the input is all of those frequencies/energies together or white.

Doing so, identifying a specific occurrence of many energies present at once, does not preclude that within that white result there is information about other colors which are related to what was seen earlier and what will be seen later. The previous is why I suggested that the processing system is designed to interpret contingent information if it is likely. That is called information processing.

You have no justification for saying photic energy is colorless. Stars are seen as the color of their energy temperature was another point I made in my previous input.

You neither read not evaluate what I write. You just bound forth with your standard mantra. Your mantra is wrong as I pointed out above.

Color changes IAC with energies processed. Nothing comes and goes. Combinations of energies are perceived as the combination of energies/colors processed. White energy masks lessor energy of another individual energy. It does so as the result of their combined versus individual lessor relative strength or intensity of an individual energy/color.

Read some masking literature. It has a long and productive history in interpreting interactions among energies. Nothing disappears, it is just overwhelmed by the masking energy. The literature will even show you how one can use masking to recover information or even make information that is not really there seem real. This stuff is way beyond where you are right now.

 

[untermensche]

It is false the energy is invisible or colorless. Photic energy of any composition is visible as the aggregate color it is.

Do you mean detectable or visible?

Things are visible to humans and detectable to human machines.

There is energy out there. It can be detected. But being detected is not being visible. Visible is when the brain creates an experience from the energy.

The table is "visible" because the brain has constructed a representation of it as an experience.

Vision is an experience. Humans have vision. Human machines can detect and respond in a manner they are programmed to respond.

If it is photic energy the energy is color.

If it is energy humans can construct a device to detect it.

If it is energy in a very narrow band then it can cause a chemical reaction in the eye that causes a reflexive creation of the experience of color in the mind.

A combination of colors, specific energies are perceived as the combination of those energies.

Not in the case of white.

White is a negation of all other colors and the creation of a different color.

White light contains all the visual spectrum.

But it does not contain any other color except for white.

It is a fallacy to say that white is a conglomeration of all other colors.

It is a unique color.

The stimulation for the brain to create white is a conglomeration of all the visual spectrum.

Probably a remnant from when all a brain could do was create the experience of white and black.

Stars are seen as the color their energy temperature was another point I made in my previous input.

Information from stars seen or detected?

You seem to use the terms loosely.

White energy masks lessor energy of another individual energy.

No such thing as white energy. There is just energy that a human turns to the experience of white.

But that energy also contains energy the brain turns to red.

Call it masking or whatever, the information about red suddenly is not information about red anymore when it is combined with other energy.

Conclusion, the energy has not changed. It has no color information to begin with.

 

[fromderinside]

Your tower of babbling has exceeded the limit. In physics the part of the spectrum designated as visible light is just that, visible light. We frame the construction by showing the equivalence between color temperature and frequency, then showing frequency as specific energy, ergo energy/color. After that we demonstrate stars with various hues are radiating at dominant dominant frequencies associated with those hues. We don't go around saying radiation is colorless when we've specified a band of radiation that exhibits color. The fact that it is visible isn't because humans can see it. It's because that band of frequency demonstrates a property of color/temperature. It would be that way whether there were humans or some other being extant in the universe.

when a philosopher gets to play with words they often screw things up royally. Here you are denying color and saying color appears and disappears because there is a mind that produces experiences. It is so much simpler to follow the evidence and say there is a relation between color and temperature within the band of radiation that results in visible light. There is a material trail which makes all of this operable. There is no similar operable frame for experience or consciousness. All they are subjective terms intervened to make man look good but run contrary to physical law.

Even information theory supports my contentions. All you have is the chanting of some philosophers with an ax to grind.

Looking at your disgusting attempt at argument the first thing we find is you staking out a territory with no evidence that there is no white light.

I counter with an analog for white light, white noise. Both of those are measurable and demonstrable.

Your denial isn't. For white light to exist you say there need be a mind. Getting to mind will be the chore of Hercules since there is no material foundation for such.

the without a Pause you jump to the mind creating red light. Apparently you want to argue that if there is red light in white light why don't we see it there. My response is white light is with like white noise white light masks the 'seeing'/'hearing' of red light(/2000 hz tone) when white light/noise is present. To hard for you to follow?

If a member of a set is in the set it contributes to the appearance of the set rather than to it's singular identity. When the is a group the attributes of the group prevail over the attribute of any one element of the group. Pretty simple stuff.

The nice thing about this simple stuff is it coincides with reality. No need form magic or appearing and disappearing involved.

Your conclusion is not correct. Energy doesn't change. Energy of the whole takes precedence over energy of a single element of the whole. Nothing disappears because red adds its bit to the white result. White is a collection of energies/photons of which red energy is but one part. The result would not be white if red were absent.

Ergo energy within the visible light band is color.

 

[untermensche]

In physics the part of the spectrum designated as visible light is just that, visible light.

It was called visible light long before there was physics and long before anyone understood what was going on.

You still don't know what is going on.

The part of the EM spectrum that causes the experience of vision we call "light".

It has no information about the experience of light in it. It is merely a stimulus.

Your anthropocentric fallacy defies evolution and is irrational.

Even if we imagine there is information about color in a wave of energy there is no way for a stimulus to force a specific response. The energy with alleged color information cannot force an evolving brain to create a specific experience.

So-called "sound waves" can't force an evolving brain to create the experience of sound. It just happens by chance.

Bats turn sound waves into a visual experience.

There is no evolutionary mechanism for a wave of energy to force an evolving brain to create a specific experience. The experiences created by evolving brains are just random contingencies that are triggered by a stimulation but the production of an experience is not controlled by the stimulation.

We frame the construction by showing the equivalence between color temperature and frequency, then showing frequency as specific energy, ergo energy/color. After that we demonstrate stars with various hues are radiating at dominant dominant frequencies associated with those hues. We don't go around saying radiation is colorless when we've specified a band of radiation that exhibits color. The fact that it is visible isn't because humans can see it. It's because that band of frequency demonstrates a property of color/temperature. It would be that way whether there were humans or some other being extant in the universe.

There are no colors without brains.

Color is an experience. It does not exist in the world.

Your argument is basically the same absurd statement over and over.

"We experience the color so the information must be out there."

WRONG!!!

The information is in the brain.

Here you are denying color and saying color appears and disappears because there is a mind that produces experiences.

I don't deny color. It is an actual experience. Whatever that is.

The stimulus for the brain to produce color does not appear and disappear. But color only appears in the mind as an experience.

It is so much simpler to follow the evidence and say there is a relation between color and temperature within the band of radiation that results in visible light.

There is a relationship between temperature and level of energy.

Color is not related to temperature at all. Color is related to the stimulation of cells in the retina.

A person will experience red no matter what the temperature is outside.

Even information theory supports my contentions.

Nonsense.

Information theory does not say there must be information about blue in the hand that turns on a blue light.

Energy is just a hand that turns on cells.

The cells send a signal to the brain and the brain creates the experience of color.

The brain creates the entire visual experience.

It is all a creation of the brain.

All you have is the chanting of some philosophers with an ax to grind.

You ignore every argument. You are just babbling to the wind ignoring everything said to you. Lost in delusion thinking there is information about blue in the hand that turns on a blue light.

Looking at your disgusting attempt at argument the first thing we find is you staking out a territory with no evidence that there is no white light.

Energy is not colored.

That is childish ignorance.

Energy can cause chemical reactions in the eye.

No information needed from it to create color.

My response is white light is with like white noise white light masks the 'seeing'/'hearing' of red light(/2000 hz tone) when white light/noise is present. To hard for you to follow?

The energy that creates the experience of white definitely causes the brain to make a different experience from red.

Your speculations about noise mean nothing.

They do not give the energy information about color.

The eye gets a different stimulation from so-called white light than it does from so-called red light.

The brain just needs a difference in stimulation to create a different experience.

The nice thing about this simple stuff is it coincides with reality.

You don't have a clue what is going on and you call it simple.

There is no information about color in energy.

You babble and babble and babble but can't show me any information about color in energy.

You are too clueless to understand there does not have to be any information about color in energy for the brain to create the experience of color.

 

[fromderinside]

Lines and lines of chatter obviously based on opinions of rational minds unaided by experimental method.

Subjective mishmash is all you have along with volumes of denial of substantiated evidence about color, color temperature, relation between energy and color all of which were presented with references to you. You present 'arguments' that are nothing more than Nay bobbery.

I've read much of that to which you refer and they also resort to second hand subjective argument with nary a material fact to support it. It's like I advised earlier, Experiment Philosophy fails when one needs to substantiate. We debunked Wundt 140 years ago and no one has replaced him. Those who wanted to objectively the bases for behavior resorted to Skinner boxes and bullae counting to no result. All those empty journals are now history thrown into a "so what' waste bin.

 

[untermensche]

You have given up.

Your position is absurd delusion.

There is no information about color in energy. You have had plenty of time to show some and have totally failed.

There does not need to be any color information in energy for a brain to create color as an experience in response to it. There is no information about pain in a broken bone.

And there is no way for external energy to force an evolving brain to create a specific experience. You have proven over and over you don't understand evolution.

Your position is a laughable joke.

 

[fromderinside]

There is no information about pain in a broken bone.... there is no way for external energy to force an evolving brain to create a specific experience.

From Encyclopedia Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/science/pain/Physiology-of-pain

Pain receptors, located in the skin and other tissues, are nerve fibres with endings that can be excited by three types of stimuli—mechanical, thermal, and chemical; some endings respond primarily to one type of stimulation, whereas other endings can detect all types. Chemical substances produced by the body that excite pain receptors include bradykinin, serotonin, and histamine. Prostaglandins are fatty acids that are released when inflammation occurs and can heighten the pain sensation by sensitizing the nerve endings; that increase in sensitivity is called hyperalgesia

...and another falsehood presented by untermensche bites the dust.

Really. Its so easy to debunk your claims. Why do you keep trying to defend positions that are so plainly wrong?

You put yourself in the block with your flat out lies and misrepresentations.

 

[untermensche]

Jesus you are dense.

A receptor is called a "pain receptor" based on the subjective experience of pain associated with it. It is no magic that these receptors can be found as long as you have living humans with brains that can create the experience of pain from stimulation.

What stimulates a receptor is not pain.

A broken bone is not pain. Tissue damage is not pain.

It is experienced as pain.

There is no information about pain in a broken bone.

There is just stimulation from receptor cells turned into the experience of pain.

A lot of stimulation = a lot of pain.

 

[fromderinside]

Pain is sensed. The mechanisms of sensing are clear. They are physical indications of damage to the sensing organism. Those indications are mechanical, chemical, and thermal. There are neurons for sensing one or several of these forms of input. Many pain responses are no more than spinal in that local activities can be initiated without the organism developing an escape plan. That an organism responds to these inputs is all that is needed for the organism to avoid further damage by withdrawing, retracting, or crying out.

Now how does this relate to feeling pain. The mechanics of pain response are mostly unconscious in nature. That one feels pain is a luxury cognitive luxury and burden in reacting to noxious stimuli.

Similarly hat light is color is important to surviving in that it guides us to select things that are not harmful need wait until conscious processing is well underway. the prior is a major distinction between the mechanisms underlying pain and vision. Of course it is true that color is not processed immediately like is sound nor noxious stimulation. So there's that.

With sound one begins receiving actable information within 10 milli-seconds in terms of source direction information. on the other hand color information doesn't associated descending processes for 20 to30 milliseconds even from light dark receptors in the retinal periphery. Color information takes up to 60 to 80 milliseconds just to arrive at cortex much less become differentiated enough to result in cortex sending input to memory or auditory cortex of 'color' .

Whether or not one 'feels' thus and so is ancillary, not causal, to the immediate responses taking place without having to be processed in the cortex. Consciousness is not required. On the other hand usable color information beyond 'light there' isn't fully formed for at least a couple hundred milliseconds or at least until cognitive processing is well underway.

So if you want to make the distinction that pain and color are similar I guess you can talk about conscious aspects of both. However in terms or response pain sense is much more like auditory sense information in that it is being actively used within milliseconds by subcortical systems.

That persons do mentally respond suggests some sort of record keeping is being carried out and for all matters of practicality irrelevant to the actions taken reflexively to the stimulus. In fact if the damage takes place in conflict crying out would be contrary to the safety of the one being harmed unless others were there to protect it.

So if there is time and individuals available a social response might be nice. Feeling pain doesn't help much except in a chronic coping sense. Even then the feeling is actually likely to contradict execution of defensive actions and conscious emergency activities leading to a sense of hopelessness and depression when present for prolonged intervals.