COLOUR

[untermensche]

You can experience various colors and put them in a wheel. So?

The wheel is constructed from experience. It could have been constructed thousands of years ago if they had the pigments. The wheel was not constructed from any property of light.

You miss the point.

There is no yellow in that picture.

In no way can the experience of yellow be a result of any light.

Light does not contain color information.

The brain creates color when stimulated in a certain way. The brain also changes the experience based on the totality of information about molecular transformations it receives.

If you don't understand that color is a brain creation, an experience, and not something in the world your research still might be valid. If your research does not touch on that issue.

You are wrong none the less.

I've studied and written papers on many of these things. Clicks after tones perceived as clicks before tones

If you don't understand that sound is an experience and it has nothing to do with vibrating air you worked blindly.

Vibrating air is turned into a visual experience by a bat. Vibrating water is turned into a visual experience by a whale.

Vibrating air is turned into a sound experience by humans.

Vibrating air is not sound.

The stimulus for the brain to create the experience of sound is not sound.

Your understanding of human sensations and perceptions is wrong.

 

[fromderinside]

You can experience various colors and put them in a wheel. So?

you miss the point.

There is no yellow in that picture.

No. You miss the point.

Yellow is introduced by the brain to comply with most likely configuration which is available from memory. Doing so is part of brain function. Mind not required.

Taking out relevant components by masking them off changes the percept, the information available to the brain.

postscript:.

The information the brain processes is caused by processing of information available to brain via auditory sensory processes which is generated by processing of arriving acoustic stimulation.

It really doesn't matter, the nicety whether how that is processed is or is not sound, since the system which processes it does process acoustic input in a particular way. And the information available to that system is strongly related to the amount of that stimulation the system receives. Leave mind, experience, self, out of your analysis if you can manage avoiding that non-material information in future responses. If you don't include it you will see it isn't there.

 

[untermensche]

Color production has nothing to do with memory.

Experiencing yellow in that picture has nothing to do with memory. A person who never saw that arrangement of pigments would experience yellow the first time they saw it. The memory being involved is literally impossible.

Memory is not involved.

The visual reflex is instantaneous. Memory has nothing to do with it.

Evolved "programs" that create color experiences based on information about molecular transformations have nothing to do with memory.

Color blind people don't have faulty memories.

 

[fromderinside]

I can't prove it does since there is no feedback other than chemical from cortex to receptor. You can't prove it doesn't because you don't know the chemical substrate between neurons and receptor. A standoff.

However with touch olfaction, audition, position senses we do know there is complete round trip communication between receptor and cortex. Based on those systems which do connect stimulus to sense Untermenche Everything you just wrote is patently false.

As an example the person knows sound since the person emits and controls it. In the Auditory System there is feed back from association cortex to receptor. Concomitantly the function and production of the vocal system which also demonstrates feedback connected all the way from cortex to vocal effectors. Obviously the brain has access to what and how sound functions.

The auditory and vocal systems area are also connected by subvocalization basis for the phenomenon of apparent consciousness, as is vision with visual apparent consciousness, and touch, and olfaction, and position sense.

Neither of us know how the developing fetus or neonate gains access to information about color except though demonstrations such as yours which clearly shows the percept decision changes in accordance with the physically sensed environment as I pointed out. Obviously the individual has possession of fairly complete color information. A mind changes nothing. If it has no access to color it has no knowledge of how color should vary with composition and shading.

You've killed yourself twice here untermenche.

A little test. What does a three millisecond 1000 hz tone burst - a tone burst has an onset a body and an offset - sound like.

Oh, and keep in mind, he he, the human present is a bit in the past concentrating on responding to what has already taken place.

 

[untermensche]

I can't prove it does since there is no feedback other than chemical from cortex to receptor.

I can prove beyond doubt the only visual information a brain receives is information about molecular transformations within cells.

I can prove beyond doubt energy does not extend into the brain and become experience.

Since all visual experience is based on information derived from internal molecular transformations and not information from the external world the visual experience must be a creation.

There is nothing else it could be.

If all you have to work with is a bunch of (+, -) information the visual experience must be a creation.

As an example the person knows sound since the person emits and controls it.

By "know" you mean a person can experience the sounds they make.

Speech is an evolved secondary use of the language capacity which is a capacity to order thought, a thinking capacity.

The thinking capacity is what caused humans to create words from what were previously only sounds.

The auditory and vocal systems area are also connected by subvocalization basis for the phenomenon of apparent consciousness, as is vision with visual apparent consciousness, and touch, and olfaction, and position sense.

They are both connected to the language capacity and the intellectual capacities.

There are no subvocalizations. There are thoughts that exist hierarchically and they have nothing to do with the mouth and there are vocalizations that must exist in linear order.

Neither of us know how the developing fetus or neonate gains access to information about color except though demonstrations such as yours which clearly shows the percept decision changes in accordance with the physically sensed environment as I pointed out. Obviously the individual has possession of fairly complete color information. A mind changes nothing. If it has no access to color it has no knowledge of how color should vary with composition and shading.

I know beyond doubt a developing brain has no information about the external world.

It only has information about internal states. About events that take place within cells.

You've killed yourself twice here untermenche.

Childish silliness.

You being wrong time and again does not kill me.

 

[fromderinside]

untermenches wrote:

I can prove beyond doubt the only visual information a brain receives is information about molecular transformations within cells.

Lets take you premise. The only visual information a brain receives is information about molecular transformation within cells. Have you ever heard of lock and key, go no go molecular organization structures? There must be thousands, perhaps millions of codes available in molecule structure and function used to pass relevant information up the pathway to cortex.

Have you ever considered the idea that organization of receptor fields is among those molecular transformations, that receptor type is among those transformations, that relations between receptor types is among those transformations? Of course you haven't.

You haven't taken in to account the function of neurons, neuron clusters, neuron structures along the ascending path interpret and change the way neurons are using and changing those molecular transformations. It's going to be along story but one can get to a color table in memory by playing with what is processing those molecules and what those processes are doing to molecules as they pass up and down the pathway.

Try to prove your claim. Perhaps you would care to tell anyone that molecules and not changes in structure and function of structures consisting of molecules are at the base of evolution. Then let me add that the reason they are part of a living thing is that they improved the likelihood of that living thing surviving to reproduce. This is particularly important to properly sense and relevantly respond to external conditions. After all, molecules are only molecules until they are part of a system or being.

That opens up a whole bunch of possibilities for one to communicate color from receptor to cortex. Some of which I've already posited.

I once mimicked EEG using a Jell-O filled gourd and again using a sting of worms. However I couldn't mimic EEG response to input of sound or touch. Your thinking is at the sting of worms level.

It certainly removes the silly proposition that only simple molecule transformations are used. No way a mind would ever become reality. That's Cinderella stuff.

 

[untermensche]

untermenches wrote

:

I can prove beyond doubt the only visual information a brain receives is information about molecular transformations within cells.

Lets take you premise. The only visual information a brain receives is information about molecular transformation within cells. Have you ever heard of lock and key...

Included in my premise is the idea that the optic nerve and neural extensions to the sensory cells in the retina are a part of the brain, an extension of the brain. The division between brain and cranial nerves is a man made division.

So in my model the instant molecular transformations are happening in retinal cells the brain (outermost cells of the brain) is getting information about them.

How the brain, including any processing that might occur in the optic nerve, processes all that (+, -) information is the visual reflex.

But ultimately all the brain has is (+, -) information about molecular transformations. There are a class of opsins so there is a variety of (+, -) information created.

From this we can without doubt conclude the visual experience must be a brain creation and the brain must have processes that create the experience.

 

[fromderinside]

Woo Woo

 

[fromderinside]

Woo Woo

The below doesn't read at all like your theory. I Know where I got this quote, you can reference it. There are figures and schemata derived from them based on experimental manipulations explaining how the components work. Now how about you putting a little skin into the game. Post studies from those you got your little gem.

From: How the Retina Works https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.733.3508&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Given how much is now known, it might be fair to ask, are we finished with the retina, or are there more surprises on the horizon? Earlier surprises included finding that much of the information transfer depended on electrical connections among cells rather than standard chemical synapses. For example, the major neural pathway from the rods depends on direct electrical connections. Some other fast-acting signals pass from amacrine cells into ganglion cells at gap junctions. Neuromodulators change the milieu of the neuron circuits but act from a distance by diffusion rather than at closely apposed synapses. Again, this is a surprising concept compared to the previous view that all neural interactions take place via neurotransmitters at specialized isolated patches of membrane apposition—that is, synapses. The most recent surprise has been that a previously unknown ganglion cell type appears to function as a giant photoreceptor itself, without needing input from rods or cones. This ganglion’s cell membrane contains light-reactive molecules known as melanopsins. Given such unexpected findings, it appears that there may still be much more to learn about how the retina works.

 

[untermensche]

Woo Woo

Your comment is just stupidity. There is no division between the cranial nerves, the spinal cord, the mesenteric nervous system and the brain. The nervous system is an integrated complete system, not fractured.

Thanks for trying.

I know how the retina works.

Energy of the right level causes a molecule to shift into a different configuration. That is the entire input into the system.

All the brain can possibly know anything about is whether or not a shift took place INSIDE cells.

It has no information about the external world.

Color is something created in response to a bunch of (+, -) information from within cells.

It is not a feature of energy. Period.

Nothing you say will ever make color a feature of energy.

That you don't know it merely proves you had no business doing research and should have done something you understood.

 

[fromderinside]

Woo Woo

I know how the retina works.

Energy of the right level causes a molecule to shift into a different configuration. That is the entire input into the system.

Really? So why does Britanicago into such detail to provide physical explanation of color?

From https://www.britannica.com/science/color/The-measurement-of-colour

Physical and chemical causes of colour

According to the law of energy conservation, energy can be converted from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. Consequently, when a photon of light is absorbed by matter, usually by an atom, molecule, or ion or by a small grouping of such units, the photon disappears and its energy is gained by the matter. Similarly, when matter emits light, it loses the energy carried away by the photons. A given atom or molecule cannot emit light of any arbitrary energy, since quantum theory explains that only certain energy states are possible for a given system.
An example of permitted energy levels is shown at the left in the figure for the trivalent chromium ion present in a crystal of aluminum oxide; this is the colorant that provides the red colour of the gemstone ruby. Present in this energy-level scheme is the ground state, designated ⁴A₂; this is the energy state of the chromium ion in ruby when in the dark. When illuminated by white light, either a photon of energy 2.2 eV or a photon of energy 3.0 eV can be absorbed, raising the system to the ⁴T₂ or ⁴T₁ energy levels, respectively. (In this system light cannot be absorbed into the level ²E because of certain quantum limitations, designated selection rules.) These two energy transitions, broadened by the thermal atomic vibrations at room temperature into absorption bands, correspond to absorption of the violet and green-yellow parts of white light passing through the ruby, as shown at the centre in the figure. The remaining transmitted light consists of the strong red and weak blue parts of the spectrum, resulting in the deep red ruby colour with a slight purple overtone.

(Left) The energy level diagram of ruby with allowed transitions and (centre) the resulting absorption and fluorescence spectra. (Right) The absorption and fluorescence spectra of emerald.


From K. Nassau, Physics and Chemistry of Color (1983); John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

The chromium ion in ruby now contains excess energy, but the selection rules permit return to the ground state only through the intermediate ²E energy level, as shown at left in the figure. Part of the absorbed energy appears as a slight warming of the ruby. The other part is emitted as a photon producing a bright red fluorescence (best seen when the ruby is illuminated with ultraviolet radiation in the dark). The ruby has now returned to the ground state, and energy has been conserved. This is just one explanation of the occurrence of colour. Although all occurrences or causes of colour involve the excitation of electrons, this article, to simplify explanation, classifies the physical and chemical causes of colour into 15 groups. The first three involve transitions among the energy levels of excitations, vibrations, and rotations as explained by quantum theory. The next four involve modifications of this approach covered by the ligand field and molecular orbital theories. The following four involve the energy band formalism of solid statephysics, and the final four are explained by geometrical and physical optics theory. More ...

Pretty explicate I'd say. Turns out the process of encoding color goes through a lot physical transformations, not just a molecule shift. I believe changing energy states is a physical transformation that can be reversed and transmitted.


Time to quit your simplistic hand waving hand poo pooing and treat color as a physical light attribute, not a mind thing. Given light of a segment of light frequencies do interact with molecular structures those interactions are also treatable through physical methods.

Rat-tat-bumpf

Simplicity is nice if it applies. Usually it doesn't. So one must go the extra effort to understand and specify.

 

[fromderinside]

Your comment is just stupidity. There is no division between the cranial nerves, the spinal cord, the mesenteric nervous system and the brain. The nervous system is an integrated complete system, not fractured.

I didn't say, nor did the article suggest there were divisions. It's the optical system. There are different processes within the system and elements with different functions within the processes.

So I'm calling Red Herring on you. Amazing how you go through eleven lines after your herring cast to reiterate your silly position then conclude I'm messed up based on your false claim about your fictional unsupported claims.

The spin-dizzies are on the loose.

 

[untermensche]

Your comment is just stupidity. There is no division between the cranial nerves, the spinal cord, the mesenteric nervous system and the brain. The nervous system is an integrated complete system, not fractured.

I didn't say, nor did the article suggest there were divisions. It's the optical system. There are different processes within the system and elements with different functions within the processes.

So I'm calling Red Herring on you. Amazing how you go through eleven lines after your herring cast to reiterate your silly position then conclude I'm messed up based on your false claim about your fictional unsupported claims.

The spin-dizzies are on the loose.

When I say the only information the brain gets is (+, -) information about molecular transformations it is a fact. Telling me there are various forms of neural processing of the information doesn't change the fact.

The brain gets no information about the energy.

If color information was actually in energy the brain would have no way to get it.

The brain only gets internal information.

Everything it does it does using information from internal events.

The brain does not have any way to know what caused any of the internal events.

We as animals with intelligence and language have figured it out.

So you somehow think the brain knows as well.

Your ideas are so crazy and defy what is possible I am dizzy.

 

[untermensche]

Really? So why does Britanicago into such detail to provide physical explanation of color?

They gave no physical explanation of color.

They talked about the experience of color as it relates to various stimuli.

But as we know the stimuli is only associated with the production of color.

It has no information about color. It is a stimulus for the brain to create color and a specific stimulus with a specific effect on the nervous system.

The color is in the brain created visual experience.

That is the only place the color exists.

 

[fromderinside]

Not experience.

The Britannica article lays out the physical processes through which material that react to light frequency always produces the same representation of frequency as a particular color which is always associated with a particular frequency of light.

The Klob article provides convincing material evidence of processes in the eye and along the ascending and descending pathways by which this information is chemically transmitted to the locus where it's frequency and color are resolved.

The leaf reflects light frequencies which the brain receives by way of photo sensitive receptors. The eye transmits frequency dependent information about the leaf as only the leaf reflected frequencies particular to the leaf' attributes dictate. It's all physical and it's all consistent. There is no creation there beyond cortical matching the memory stored frequency/color table with the coded information arriving from the receptor.

All the processes in both articles are material processes, some of which are chemically quantized responses to light by sensitive material which will always be consistent with light frequency and color report.

No need for mind at all. Just a pretty thorough explanation of material processes that result in the report of attributes of specific light frequencies to sensitive material.

Not a single hand wave anywhere.

 

[untermensche]

Not experience.

The Britannica article lays out the physical processes through which material that react to light frequency always produces the same representation of frequency as a particular color which is always associated with a particular frequency of light.

The same frequency will have the same effect on the nervous system.

The energy is the stimulus for the visual reflex.

A stimulus the brain can't possibly know anything about.

All the brain can know about are events that take place within sensory cells.

The brain has no other information from which it constructs the visual experience. It therefore must have processes that turn (+, -) information about molecular transformations into the experience of a color.

You confusing what humans know in their minds with what a brain could possibly know is tiresome.

 

[fromderinside]

By reflex you are referring to a process through brain tissue. For brain tissue to execute a reflex the tissue must be excited by a particular stimulus in a particular way. That way is by matching existing information in the brain in memory with the excited nervous tissue. For there to be a match nervous tissue excitation must match memory template. For that to be the nervous tissue must hold the same information as does memory. Ergo the incoming information is color frequency and it matches with memory color frequency. The nervous tissue need know anything beyond the fact that it is excited by specific information which has a specific signature that is suited to excite the tissue. No need for mind discovery or bringing experience. Those feature are part of the evolutionary program of the involved neurons.

 

[untermensche]

You fail to look at the system.

You obviously don't understand information processing.

A system can only process the information it has access to.

The nervous system has no access to any information about energy.

It only has internal information about molecular transformations. A molecular transformation is not a wave of photons.

And from that information a visual experience is constructed.

I know energy is the stimulus for all the transformations.

The brain does not have access to that information.

This topic is dead.

It died a long time ago.

Your misunderstandings are deep and your refusal to grow is strong.

Not persuading you is meaningless.

 

[fromderinside]

So the receptors in the eyes have no access to energy? Why are they changed by specific light energy? Of course the nervous system has access to energy. Those articles showed in detail how receptors in eyes, the cells behind the eyes, and the nervous system beyond process thins information. Those molecular changes are regulated and guided all the way up the nervous system by correcting and interpreting elements that preserve light and use frequency information.

You are so dense that you are hurting you credibility.

 

[untermensche]

So the receptors in the eyes have no access to energy?

No access to any information about the energy.

The energy causes a molecule within a cell to change configuration.

The only INFORMATION the nervous system has to work with is information about molecular transformations. Did a transformation occur or not? The brain has no understanding of what caused the transformations. It has no way to get that information.

From this (+, -) information about molecular transformations the visual experience is created.

The brain must therefore have processes that turn (+, -) information into a visual experience.

The brain must have processes that create color.

Color is not a property out in the world.

Ignorant humans that experience color every time they look at the world might think that though.