COLOUR

[untermensche]

When the magic energy hands it's information about color to the cell in the eye how does the magic energy know the brain is creating the right experience of color in response?

Color is a function of the human visual system, and is not an intrinsic property. Objects don't have a color, they give off light that appears to be a color. Spectral power distributions exist in the physical world, but color exists only in the mind of the beholder. Our perception of color is not an objective measure of anything about the light that enters our eyes, but it correlates pretty well with objective reality.

https://physics.info/color/

 

[fromderinside]

First. What I presented is the current theoretical relation between thermodynamics and information as understood by physicists, philosophers and information scientists. It was only intended to demonstrate to you that smart people in many disciplines have an understanding of the relation between information and energy-mass., that both can be coupled in a single sentence or as aspects of the same thing.

In response you go and run your declaration bit again. Wasted space litany proclamations saying nothing at all about what the relationship is between light, color and information in relation to understanding color and light frequency-energy levels.

You are doing your best to keep your pipe dream afloat about the 'mystery' of color. Using your 'method' Denial of information transfer in perception are the rantings of an idiot. Keep it up. I'm happy to advertise your ignorance over and over.

So then you resort to someone on physics discussion board talking about what he thinks is going on as your authority?

Then in the second paragraph of this amateur hour presentation the writer confesses he doesn't know much about processes after the receptor responds to light.

Color is determined first by frequency and then by how those frequencies are combined or mixed when they reach they eye. This is the physics part of the topic.

...

I don't feel qualified to say much about that end of this process. Once the visual information leaves the eye, basic physics ends and neurocognition takes over. (washing hands admitting I dunno).

But even he has a clue or so he sez when he writes color "...is determined first by frequency then by how those frequencies are mixed when they reach the eye." Determined is a clue of causality.

Light transmitted from sources or reflected off objects are where light frequency combinations are set.

ALL that takes place at the receptor is the transfer of information about what is the frequency/intensity mix arriving at the eye and being detected via conversion of shape from energy to which a particular one of three frequency selective molecules found in one various cones is responsive.

I really don't have to cis/trans anything.

Rhodopsin changing shape begins a process within the eye that ultimately results in information being transferred from the receptor cell via neurochemical processes to neurons in the eye uniquely signally what light frequencies were detected at that locus in the eye.

 

[untermensche]

Pointing out information is not pointing out information about color.

And the energy is merely causing a chemical reaction.

Information if not transferred from the energy to the molecule during chemical reactions.

Chemists understand this.

The energy causes a change.

That change may be information but it is not information the energy gave the molecule. The molecule already has all the information it needs to make the change.

It just needs a push.

I really don't have to cis/trans anything.

Yes.

You don't have to look at what is actually happening.

You have your anthropocentric delusions.

Color is a function of the human visual system, and is not an intrinsic property. Objects don't have a color, they give off light that appears to be a color. Spectral power distributions exist in the physical world, but color exists only in the mind of the beholder. Our perception of color is not an objective measure of anything about the light that enters our eyes, but it correlates pretty well with objective reality.

But even he has a clue or so he sez when he writes color "...is determined first by frequency then by how those frequencies are mixed when they reach the eye." Determined is a clue of causality.

The thing the brain creates (color) is determined by which frequencies excite cells in the eye.

There is a correlation between the specific frequency and the thing the brain creates in response (color) but color only exists as that response. It is not something in the world.

Correlation is not causation.

Internal "programming" causes the color to be created.

The energy is merely correlated to this evolved response. The energy causes a reflex to happen. It does not define the response.

The hammer does not define that the leg kick when the patellar reflex is struck.

The leg is not getting information about the hammer.

The brain can't know it was a hammer.

The brain can't know the energy is "red".

 

[untermensche]

Light is an anthropocentric concept.

It is merely the invisible energy that causes the brain to create a visual experience.

The light is in the brain, not in the world.

The invisible energy just hits the switch and turns on the lights in the mind.

 

[fromderinside]

Yet among the very first things sensed by living things was light that were already equipping themselves with photosensitive minerals and compounds. It was reacted to by minerals, reflected by optical conditions in atmospheres, given off by stars well before living things existed. Yet it's invisible, uninformative apparently, according to astounding thermodynamics and evolution by untermensche. It was sensed prior to there being a legitimate nervous system, a brain, even a major clusters of neurons. My, my. I wonder why the visual receptor has a photosensitive compound included within their evolution?

To all the above you have no answer.

No.

You do have an answer?

Its definitely the brain that creates color as experience.

Yes indeedy. Dear children untermensche claims it is so thus necessary and true.

Set evolution of matter and life aside.

Just read his proclamations.

IOW U R nuts.

 

[untermensche]

Evolving organisms don't equip themselves with anything.

All their traits arise randomly.

What a brain creates in response to any neural stimulation arises randomly.

The experience of red does not arise because energy was nice and asked the brain to create it.

It arises randomly.

 

[fromderinside]

Two things need to be made clear about what you wrote. "What a brain creates in response to any neural stimulation arises randomly" is false and a nonstarter.

First

However, the idea that mutations are random can be regarded as untrue if one considers the fact that not all types of mutations occur with equal probability. Rather, some occur more frequently than others because they are favored by low-level biochemical reactions. These reactions are also the main reason why mutations are an inescapable property of any system that is capable of reproduction in the real world. Mutation rates are usually very low, and biological systems go to extraordinary lengths to keep them as low as possible, mostly because many mutational effects are harmful. Nonetheless, mutation rates never reach zero, even despite both low-level protective mechanisms, like DNA repair or proofreading during DNA replication, and high-level mechanisms, like melanin deposition in skin cells to reduce radiation damage. Beyond a certain point, avoiding mutation simply becomes too costly to cells. Thus, mutation will always be present as a powerful force in evolution.

IOW the idea of random mutation is very complex and variated and mostly a bad generalization.

Second

What the brain creates in response to any neural stimulation is nonsensical because the brain doesn't create rather it acts IAC to what its neurons respond which is neuron stimulation. Neurons are formed into systems for parsing out various forms of information about the world for which it is designed to and through learning is what the nervous system becomes able to do.

The brain is not a unitary thing. It is a conglomerate of things that have provided advantage in the past and to some extent are retained now with adjustments made via random mutation directed by fitness. The fact that the process of mutation is random in no way detracts from the conclusion that the brains existing today are more fit than those that they replaced. They satisfy two criteria. They work now when the others didn't and life is more advanced today than it's been in the past.

With reference to randomness of nervous activity, I've found in psychoacoustics is that the human hearing system, the part of the acoustic stimuli apparatus actually concerned with making sense of what is being presented via the receptors does so remarkably well within in just about a fourth to a third of a second. From the perception of a click to the identification of a specific tonal frequency takes place through a reasonably accurate model of what was received by the ascending Auditory Nervous System.

Here is where I will disagree with those who say the brain does not process. In the case of the ascending auditory system. The auditory system does actually process the nature of a stimulus from that of a click to that of a tone of 1000 hz rather well. There are corresponding processes in every sensory system all with resolving times from one third to about two thirds of a second. What's more I can insert information in the form of noise masking intelligible speech that the observer will report the intelligible speech as if there were no noise interspersed in the message.

While those who look at the brain as a whole can't find process those of us who treat with specific aspects of the brain do find continuous evidence of process. I think the problem is with those who consider the brain as a being rather than as many complex machines composed of many functions which together with other systems result in a living being. The brain is not the being.

In conclusion: Your post is pure BS for which I took a little time, way more than I should have needed, to demonstrate some of your folly. Enjoy

 

[untermensche]

Two things need to be made clear about what you wrote. "What a brain creates in response to any neural stimulation arises randomly" is false and a nonstarter.

No.

It is an absolute fact. Stimulations don't dictate their response. They have no way to control the response.

When you understand it you will begin to understand the visual reflex.

It is amusing you worked your whole life not understanding it.

You never once wondered if there is any information about color in waves of energy.

There isn't.

To support your absurd positions you are left with the pinnacle of absurd nonsense, that experience, the only thing we know for certain exists, does not exist.

Experience is all that is "real" to a human.

There can be several positions taken about experience. You absurdly claim it does not exist but also claim the experience of red is a faithful rendering of the color on the surface of the apple. The information went into the eye and popped out again somewhere unchanged.

You could also have an evolutionary understanding of experience and understand that any experience is like the leg. Something created by evolutionary processes.

That is the entirety of the animal. Randomly created then randomly refined features.

 

[fromderinside]

The only reasonable approach to answering your absurd claims is to look into your responses for clues about rational.

Here's what I found. There is little logical connection between your 'dictate response', 'control response' and my presentation.

I wrote that the auditory system is a piece of the neural system concerned with treating acoustic input. Functionally the acoustic sensing system has evolved to resolve many signals, to produce evidence of each if possible and to get at intelligence in such information. The system has evolved to do these things because doing so is important to a human's existence and success while alive. Those functions are neither dictate response or control response. They are evolved because history of humanity has shown it is important for humans to understand, classify, catalog, and generate appropriate behavior in the presence of these attributes in acoustic data in the world in which man exists. In other words evolution during the presence of man has found these attributes and processes useful to man. You need only look at the material human record. No looking inward, self analyzing or pronouncing.

Your treatment of experience is self realized for which I say " and....."

Why is it self realized? I ask. So he sez., walking away as if the point had been proved, " it is self evident."

"Rationalistic pooh pah" I say, "one cannot use self testimony as defense, much less as evidence or proof of anything.'

You see a rock. No one else sees the rock. "it's a rock" you say conclusively. Ask yourself "do I exist." No doubt you conclude.

Then we find you are actually a character in a story. You can't bake bread that I can eat. Consternation? No lack of evidence. To be evidence it needs be materially and publicly confirmed.

Re-read what you wrote. Did you provide any evidence at all. Of course not. You were talking about yourself to yourself. Not a speck of materiality anywhere.

When I produced my story I purposely referred to experiments where there were controls and a records of material evidence produced and evaluated by my self and others in a public and reproducible study.

So I'm absurd because I don't hew to your personal proclamations. No sir. You are absurd because you do hew to just your self proclamations.

 

[untermensche]

The positive claim here is that waves of EM energy, ONLY at a certain energy levels mind you, carry information about color.

That is the claim that has never once been supported.

Instead you babble about thermodynamics and the price of Mink in Moscow.

 

[fromderinside]

If you care to look into how the electromagnetic spectrum is parsed you will find it is parsed by what makes use of it or what responds to it. Those are perfectly adequate operational definitions of the media since their definitions are material, measurable, and standardized.



unterensche instead prefers to call the entire spectrum invisible. It is his right. But he can't then conclude that because he called it invisible that it can't be characterized by what responds to it, what uses it, or what can be characterized by it. Using color in those circumstances are all material and correct statements and nothing is created by some self referenced subjective thing.

If anything material is characteristically responsive to or produce particular frequencies those events are sufficient for naming and treating that light relative to those particular bandwidths of light that make physical matter change or use it. Terms of color are useful in such situations because they have physical and methodological material meaning. It is not invisible in those circumstances.

Just as when one finds that particular spectrum are produced when matter reacts to produce energy that the temperatures at which the energy is produced is indicated by a signature temperature and frequency. One can characterize such objects by their detection using visible light sensitive media.

Bottom line if there are material bases for naming parts of the spectrum the naming becomes a material descriptor.

Insisting light is invisible when it materially isn't is both a logical and and empirical error. For instance radio waves within atmospheres are more or less transmissible depending on the chemical and physical makeup of the medium. Knowing the attributes of the atmospheres makes possible predicting transmissibility and production of instruments for transmitting such EM.

 

[untermensche]

The energy is invisible.

You never see it.

To think you see the energy is laughably naive.

You experience a visual reflex. The brain has no clue what caused the reflex.

Nothing you say will ever make sense in this area.

You have abandoned reason and deny the only things we know for certain.

Our experiences.

You think because you experience that little bar of color the brain must be getting information about color.

That is naive anthropocentric delusion.

There is no need for any information about color in a brain that can create things like the experience of pain.

With certain kinds of vertigo the cause is little floating crystals in the middle ear.

You would have us believe vertigo is expressing some feature of the crystals.

It shows a complete lack of knowledge of the idea of stimulation.

 

[fromderinside]

...and untermensche's tirade above is why philosophy has been a dead study as the the nature of man for over two hundred years. The tirade also demonstrates why experimental philosophy has never taken hold. Philosophers can't resist referring to self as reason why things are the way they chant.

End of lesson children.

 

[untermensche]

It is not debatable.

The only things a human knows for certain are their experiences.

There is no doubt you are experiencing an orange cat when you are experiencing an orange cat.

There can be no doubt.

You have not created a means to doubt.

You merely doubt what can't be doubted.

You babble irrationally then pat yourself on the back for your blindness.

 

[fromderinside]

Sometimes it's better to ignore ignorance than to combat it. Given you have no intention of discussing merits of either your or my positions this is one of those times.

bye.

 

[untermensche]

I can't debate fools who claim there is some mystical information about color in waves of EM energy yet can't produce any evidence of this information for 30 pages.

You have no understanding of the visual reflex.

You think a trans to cis transition is information about color.

So no understanding of basic chemistry either.

 

[fromderinside]

Just coming by to complete correction of an erroneous conclusion not based on stated facts. No one said trans to cis trans is color. It is evidence that EM frequency induces material activity. What is left is to show that that change actually gets other neurons to adapt to move toward interpreting what is signaled is of a particular frequency/color all the way up the ascending optic pathway to cortex.

Complex. Take your time. It's important.

 

[untermensche]

No one said trans to cis trans is color. It is evidence that EM frequency induces material activity.

To your mind it is.

To the cell there is no understanding of what caused the transition.

The cell has mechanisms that respond to the transition. The transition is merely a switch that has been activated. From millions of switches going off the brain constructs the visual experience whole. It uses evolved mechanisms to construct it.

All the cell can possibly know is whether or not a transition has taken place.

It has no possible way to know anything about energy.

 

[untermensche]

There is no yellow in this image.

Cover the parts that are not appearing to be yellow and you will see the brain turns grey to yellow.

 

[fromderinside]

Here is the subtractive color wheel.

Please note your figure includes magenta, cyan, black, red, green, and purple.

The brain has, through it's vast quantity of inputs from receptors, access to the entire wheel, and processes to organize it (the color wheel).

Seems pretty simple that if one can, by removing cyan, magenta, red, green and black from the figure left only the apparent yellow circle and the purple frame. the same result takes place when either the cyan or magenta
e
The illusion is busted.

It is so because the brain has processes designed to produce a realizable outcome.

The outcome without cyan, magenta, red, green, and black is the actual gray and purple result. Black, red, and green are problems with the figure since to produce black, red, and green yellow must be present. The brain takes the yellow option over the true gray option as consistent with normal percept. No mind necessary. The brain selects dominant percept over aberrant precept. Result is reveled when illogical elements are removed. So by putting hand over cyan, magenta, and black we are looking at a gray circle in a purple grid.

Just as brain selects both sound and light moving in the direction of the light rather than the direction of the sound.
Or brain select rod passing through rectangle rather than rod and swinging, not rotating, trapezoid.

I've studied and written papers on many of these things. Clicks after tones perceived as clicks before tones, Masking noise intermixed with coherent speech interpreted as the entire speech rather than the masked actual presentation, und zo weiter.

These things are not evidence of mind, they are evidence of brain processing principles and their limitations.

The brain is a probabilistic perceptual organizer. Results (percepts) depend on probabilities based on learning.