COLOUR

[untermensche]

Using the word 'reason' is unreasonable since your answer was to one using empirical material to fill in for the subjective fodder you provide.

How would a robot know what is reasonable?

 

[untermensche]

I only discuss things with beings in control of their ideas and capable of changing them based on reason alone.

how do you know a pen works?

You freely pick up that pen and test it.

It takes a consciousness and a desire to do something like that.

Vision exists.

It just isn't what some people think it is.

It is a total creation by the brain.

Not one bit of it is actually what is out there.

It resembles what is out there to sufficiently survive.

Size and shape are self correcting experiences. The better the brain creates a representation of size and shape the better the animal survives.

If the same were true about color it would mean the colors created were those that over time gave the animal the best chance to survive. They are arbitrary in other words.

Created based on animal survival rates not based on any information from the world.

 

[fromderinside]

Terms serve many discussions well. Reasonable to an determinist can mean something with criterion meeting evidence. Words need not have only political or philosophical homes. There are materialist and reductionist, and empirical homes for them as well. Rational is away of framing invented by Plato. Empirical has Pythagoras and Archimedes as early adherents.

 

[untermensche]

When rational ideas are understood they can't be overturned except by irrational will.

When it is understood that energy that stimulates a cell cannot tell that cell what experience a brain should create in response it is an idea that will stand.

 

[fromderinside]

Obviously you don't understand, or, are too think headed to understand that that which generates subjective claims are material beings.

The claim is not the being.

The being produces the claim based on what it has available to it. The being produces the claim that is all. It turns out that humans are beings that learn as well as produce subjective claims. Those beings can inspect their attributes via physical means. Humans can remember, reconstruct, and run empirical experiments on what they did making the claim - on how they came to make those claims - using material methods.

We don't use that which one uses to experience to understand the experience. We come to understand experience via applying material measures to elements of what we did to produce the experience to discover how those elements produced the experience.

We don't make wishes. We conduct experiments.

 

[untermensche]

Do you use "being" in the sense Sartre used it?

Because he talked about being in-itself and being for-itself.

A contrast heralded in the phenomenology of Husserl and Heidegger, and central to Sartre's work Being and Nothingness. Being for-itself (pour-soi) is the mode of existence of consciousness, consisting in its own activity and purposive nature; being in-itself (en-soi) is the self-sufficient, lumpy, contingent being of ordinary things. The contrast bears some affinity to Kant's distinction between the perspective of agency or freedom and that of awareness of the ordinary phenomenal world.

When it is understood that energy that stimulates a cell cannot tell that cell what experience a brain should create in response it is an idea that will stand.

What is interesting is our experience tells us a little about how the experience of vision evolved.

The whole spectrum creates white.

White is only the combination of all the frequencies in the so-called "visual spectrum". It is not the combination of all the colors. The combination of all the colors is muddy and dark. It is not white.

So it appears the experience of white evolved first and it involved the stimulation of the entire so-called "visual spectrum". That part of the spectrum that excites human cells in the eye.

And over time smaller different experiences evolved from smaller parts of the spectrum because different kinds of cells evolved.

But these newer experiences are not created when the entire so-called "visual spectrum" stimulates the eye.

The older remnant experience survives even though newer experiences have evolved.

The experience of white is helpful for survival so it remained.

 

[fromderinside]

I use being as the physical being, thing.

Light

Additive color refers to how we see color in light itself. Our modern understanding of light and color begins with the experiments conducted by Sir Isaac Newton, who used a prism to split white light into the visible spectrum of colors. The key discovery here was the light is not merely revealing color which is already there; it is the color.

With subtractive color, you see color because some wavelengths are being reflected and others are being absorbed (subtracted). When you mix all the subtractive colors together, you do not get white light; you get mud.

Why must I always have to correct your erroneous statements. You'd look better if you confirmed your intuitions.

Just sayin....

 

[untermensche]

Get some red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet paint.

Mix it all together and tell me what you get.

Those color wheels mean nothing. You do know there are only three types of cone cells? And they relate to the experience of red blue and green.

Those color wheels were created based on experience. Not based on any property of light or color.

For the human eye a little so-called green information plus a little so-called red information equals the experience of orange.

Because the colors created are arbitrary evolutionary contingencies.

The colors experienced relate to the survival rates of arbitrary color production.

They have nothing to do with energy in the world that stimulates the eye.

You need to focus on your complete misunderstanding of this.

I get a kick out of fools that think energy somehow carries information about color.

 

[fromderinside]

Amazing magic thought on your part. Who cares if you say only two pigments contribute to light perception means not all colors can be represented. The number of photopigments in humans is four. Color information is not magic. Light received is parsed by location and pigment which can be resolved into the colors of the rainbow by neural processing just as spreading frequencies along the basilar membrane permits resolution of sound tonotopic resolution by location on the basilar membrane.

 

[untermensche]

That chart can only be produced by a being that experiences color.

Because the chart is made based on the experience of color, not based on any property of color found in energy at 423 nm of wavelength.

Energy around a wavelength of 564 nm is experienced as red.

You can call a cone "red" even though the cell knows nothing about red if you see that the stimulation of that cone alone causes the brain to create the experience of red.

But if you stimulate all the cones the brain does not make a combination of red blue and green. It makes a completely different thing. White.

The creation of color by the brain is not because of information from the world. It is because of information in the brain, in the genes.

 

[fromderinside]

In order for the brain to support 'experience' it has to have the hardware to reproduce colors. I know that colors come out of the blue because that is what oxygen reflects. The brain didn't start with that now did it. Now that you're pushing color to the genes you might try to explain how such can be so if there is no color.

Ah I see. A hand wave. Nice wave. What does it mean?

 

[untermensche]

The brain needs the "instructions" to reflexively create colors within a visual experience that is a total creation of the brain.

Experience is a brain creation.

Every bit of it.

 

[fromderinside]

Provide a route for random genetic activity to produce what the brain needs lacking any driven path selecting for coming up with such. That is all you need do. The thing is that if there is no drive for some means to produce such capability in the brain so no capability is likely to result.

I've already done it by showing how having evolutionary pressure lead up to receptors responsive to various frequencies of light. Now evolutionary principles have something to work with.

All you've done is wave your hand. Sorry. things don't work that way.

 

[untermensche]

You don't understand evolution.

You ignore what is happening.

What is happening is EM energy is causing a chemical reaction.

It is causing a molecule to transform.

That is all the energy is doing.

A molecule changing shape because energy caused it to change shape is not information about color.

It can't be anything but a stimulus.

What the brain makes out of the stimulus is an evolutionary contingency.

For humans vibrations of air are transformed into the experience of sound.

For a bat the same thing is transformed into a visual experience.

The stimulus says nothing about what an evolving brain may make from that stimulus.

Experience is far more complex than your simple mindedness about energy telling a cell what color it is.

 

[fromderinside]

- nm

 

[fromderinside]

A molecule changing shape because energy caused it to change shape is not information about color.

Modes for molecules changing shape have fixed material parameters. In the case of photosensitive materials it is particular energy interacting with molecules in visual receptors causes detecting molecules to twist yielding stress on other molecules attached to the sensitive molecule to produce a current passed under the cell's membrane to sites holding transmitter substance molecules by polarity to release them.

The only information that can be transmitted is about the location and reactivity of that locality to a particular energy input. The brain does not know this, nor the mind, nor self, nor experience as you are treating it. All that can be learned by the receiving system is that of receptor location and reactivity. That is accomplished through the process of association performed by neural matter.

So while it is true that energy is sensed by the receptor that becomes a sensation of a particular energy, color, at a specific retina location as part of a representation of visual information of particular place at a particular time as seen by one oriented thus and so to the world. No magic here folks.

 

[fromderinside]

Following up I think this article is relevant to what we are trying to decipher about this creating that etc.

A hierarchical, retinotopic protoorganization of the primate visual systemat birth: https://elifesciences.org/articles/26196.pdf

Abstract The adult primate visual system comprises a series of hierarchically organized areas. Each cortical area contains a topographic map of visual space, with different areas extracting different kinds of information from the retinal input. Here we asked to what extent the newborn visual system resembles the adult organization. We find that hierarchical, topographic organization is present at birth and therefore constitutes a proto-organization for the entire primate visual system. Even within inferior temporal cortex, this proto-organization was already present, prior to the emergence of category selectivity (e.g., faces or scenes). We propose that this topographic organization provides the scaffolding for the subsequent development of visual cortex that commences at the onset of visual experience

It is clear that the chimp was selected because it is a good model for human visual organization and function. This article strongly suggests the overall visual processing architecture is evolved at birth and that stimulation by external events just tunes existing structure and capabilities to current circumstances as the chimp matures.

Your serve.

 

[untermensche]

Modes for molecules changing shape have fixed material parameters.

It's called organic chemistry. Look into it one day.

In the case of photosensitive materials it is particular energy interacting with molecules in visual receptors causes detecting molecules to twist yielding stress on other molecules attached to the sensitive molecule to produce a current passed under the cell's membrane to sites holding transmitter substance molecules by polarity to release them.

The molecule moves from a cis configuration to a trans configuration.

That is not information about color.

It is information the brain uses to construct color.

There is no information about color in energy.

The energy does something. It does not pass information. It causes a molecule to change shape. It is a hand turning on a tiny switch.

Molecules changing shape is information a brain can use to construct color as it constructs every single aspect of experience.

 

[fromderinside]

I've already posted what you are trying to unter-splain. Unter-spaiiing changes nothing. The particular frequency energy is what interacts with the photo sensitive molecule results in molecule shape change and information transfer in the receptor which is thence passed to the nervous system via normal neuro transmitter processes.

Had you even read the abstract I posted you'd know that the neonate visual system is functionally complete at birth. All stimulation of it does is fine tune existing processes to current external environments. Nothing is created. A reproduction of the external world is produced via existing structure through external stimulation of appropriately designed and placed neural processes. Color sensitivity is evolved in receptors using color sensitive pigments as part of their functional structure.

That color exists has been explained as has color is reproduced is explained. The only one here holding that magic is somehow taking place and that something you call mind creates color is you. Are you going to argue that Octopi minds produce color including the changing of their body color as conditions permit? I don't think even you would dare to so do.

 

[untermensche]

The wavelength corresponds to energy level. As the wavelength increases the energy decreases.

The very small wavelengths can cause mutations they have so much energy.

AM and FM radio waves are harmless and have no biological effect.



It takes a very specific energy level of EM energy to cause a molecule in the eye to shift from trans-retinol to cis-retinol. Once in the cis configuration the retinol molecule can fit onto the opsin molecule which is the beginning of the chain of events that leads to the creation of the visual experience.

The energy does not carry any other information to pass along. It is the proper energy level to cause a molecule to change shape. That is all. No information is passed. A reaction is caused.

You want to claim a mere chemical reaction is also a passing of information.

Chemistry doesn't work that way.

In the liver cis-retinol is converted to trans-retinol and then transported to the eye.

When that transformation happens no information about color is passed either.

That is not how chemical reactions work.

Nobody but you thinks information is passed when you heat a molecule and a change occurs.