COLOUR

[fromderinside]

I beg to differ. The nervous system was restructured to detect light. Such was done because light provides information useful to life surviving. So as a basis for processing light the nervous system was purposed to to do so. Ergo Light is information and the nervous system processes light information.

Your turn.

Uh, mate in two.

 

[untermensche]

Light (energy that causes the visual reflex) is not processed anywhere within the nervous system. That is pulled from your backside.

The energy causes a molecular transformation.

PERIOD.

Those of us that understand organic chemistry understand a molecular transformation is not information about energy.

 

[fromderinside]

Period in caps adds no weight to your argument. You presented an incomplete organic chemistry answer to a very complex biophysiological design question.

You dismiss Kolb's important neuroanatomical/electrophysiological paper with your simplistic denial. You need much more.

Those of us who study evolution know that conservation of energy is important to fitness. No system would exist in a being unless it contributes to surviving. If a receptor for light sensing includes something sensitive to light it uses it to sense light. If a system senses light it processes the information provided by light.

If all that can be done is to signal something has happened then that will be preserved in the system as being sensed as light and if there are different sensitive substances in then there will be different sensations of light.

Given those requirement the sensing system will develop ways to preserve the nature, of sensation, the magnitudes of sensation and the source of sensation via neural means as are indicated in the Kolb paper. (How the Retina Works https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdo...=rep1&type=pdf )

Some elementary organic chemistry claim will not impede a system for sensing light from meeting those requirements.

You also need to re-read the Britannica article :

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.

Also you need to get up to date on the relation between mass-energy and information. The mass Energy Information Equivalence Principle https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5123794

Landauer’s principle formulated in 1961 states that logical irreversibility implies physical irreversibility and demonstrated that information is physical. Here we formulate a new principle of mass-energy-information equivalence proposing that a bit of information is not just physical, as already demonstrated, but it has a finite and quantifiable mass while it stores information.

You need to go back and understand how organic molecular transformations can actually transmit light information rather than just stopping with your silly little incomplete statement of process as a satisfactory answer. It is impossible for a jump to the invention of color experience from nothing to get around the the biophysics reflected in Kolb's representation of how the visual sensing system is organized and functions.

Mate mate!

 

[untermensche]

That paper does not support your position in any way.

Retinal becomes fixed in the photoreceptors’ opsin proteins, where this small molecule changes its conformation in response to photons, or packets of light.

Energy causes a molecule to change it's conformation.

Energy is not information entering the system.

Energy is either changing the shape of a molecule or it is not changing the shape of the molecule.

The information that enters the nervous system is information about whether or not a molecule changed shape. The molecule changing configuration does not produce information about so-called light energy. (Light: The levels of energy that elicit the visual reflex).

Does she talk of anything besides reflexive behavior?

And using this (+,-) information to construct the visual experience is not any kind of violation of the conservation of energy.

It is the only way it can occur.

There is no way for information about the energy to enter the nervous system.

 

[fromderinside]

There is no way for information about the energy to enter the nervous system.

Now you're moving the goal posts again by ignoring current understanding of the relation between thermodynamics and information re entropy. You need to read up on filter theory and communication theory as far back as the mid '50s.

 

[untermensche]

There is no way for information about the energy to enter the nervous system.

Now you're moving the goal posts again by ignoring current understanding of the relation between thermodynamics and information re entropy. You need to read up on filter theory and communication theory as far back as the mid '50s.

I have not moved any goalposts. I understand this.

You are waking from your stupor and starting to understand the absurdity of your position.

No information about energy is transferred into the nervous system when a molecule changes shape and the cell recognizes that internal event.

The nervous system creates the visual experience from (+,-) information about molecular transformations that take place within cells.

The nervous system has no way to know anything about what caused the transformations.

It has no way to know anything about colorless invisible energy.

An amazing thing.

Color is a pure creation by the nervous system.

It is not a property of anything in the world.

It is a property of experiences of the mind.

Proof of both experience and minds that have them.

 

[fromderinside]

No information about energy is transferred into the nervous system when a molecule changes shape and the cell recognizes that internal event.

The nervous system creates the visual experience from (+,-) information about molecular transformations that take place within cells.

The nervous system has no way to know anything about what caused the transformations.

It has no way to know anything about colorless invisible energy.

I answered that screed above in the post to which you re-created this BS.

The visual system is an evolved system designed to provide information about the world from the processing of light. It evolved because there is benefit to knowing about a lighted world. Access such information increases the likelihood the individual having this capacity surviving to produce successful offspring.

So your "No way Jose" is just plain wrong. There is no way around that. Obviously your preconceived notion about how nervous systems work is fatally flawed.

Your information scotoma is just that. You have a blind spot.

Just so you won't ever have your 'plain wrong' to use as a blunt instrument I provide you with a bit of research.


Advances in Color Science: From Retina to Behavior https://www.jneurosci.org/content/30/45/14955 (Journal of Neuroscience 10 November 2010, 30 (45) 14955-14963)

Just to set the stage below is how they introduce retinal mechanisms.

A single cone by itself is color blind because its activation depends on both the wavelength(s) and intensity of the stimulus. A comparison of the signals from different classes of photoreceptors is therefore the most basic computational requirement of a color-vision system. The existence of cone-opponent retinal ganglion cells that perform such comparisons is well established in primate (Dacey and Packer, 2003; Jacobs, 2008). Cone-opponent retinal ganglion cells respond with increased firing to an increment in activation of one cone type (on-response) and to a decrement in activation of a different cone type (off-response) (De Monasterio et al., 1975; Dacey and Lee, 1994). Cone-opponent retinal ganglion cells come in four varieties: L-on/M-off, M-on/L-off, S-on/(L+M)-off, and (L+M)-on/S-off, although the receptive fields of ON cells often have markedly different sizes and temporal dynamics compared with OFF cells, especially for cells receiving strong S-cone input (Chichilnisky and Kalmar, 2002; Chatterjee and Callaway, 2003; Conway and Livingstone, 2006; Tailby et al., 2008; Field et al., 2010). The four varieties of retinal ganglion cells were originally thought to underlie the psychological finding of four unique hues (red, green, blue, and yellow) that are yoked by perceptual antagonism (red is exclusive of green; blue is exclusive of yellow). But this simple relationship of retina physiology to psychology turns out not to be true (Derrington et al., 1984; Valberg, 2001; Webster, 2009); still, cone-opponent cells are often referred to by color terms. The neural basis for the unique hues remains elusive, although responses in extrastriate cortex may provide some clues (see last section). Two major open questions regarding retinal color processing are the nature and diversity of the neural circuitry that produces cone-opponent responses and the relationship between retinal physiology and color perception.

They go on and on and on ...in fact they were followed up by an expansion of their bit with others who found networks of cells that parsed color until they became color/orientation maps. .Obviously a bit more than +/-. all that in a tiny several trillion synapse brain. With a brain like that who need experience?

 

[untermensche]

No information about energy is transferred into the nervous system when a molecule changes shape and the cell recognizes that internal event.

The nervous system creates the visual experience from (+,-) information about molecular transformations that take place within cells.

The nervous system has no way to know anything about what caused the transformations.

It has no way to know anything about colorless invisible energy.

I answered that screed above in the post to which you re-created this BS.

The problem is your hand waving didn't even address it.

Nowhere in your smoke screen is there a specific mechanism for the cell to recognize the stimulus that caused the retinal molecule within an opsin protein to change from cis to trans.

Your hand waving about conservation of energy is not a mechanism for the cell to gain information about the cause of the retinal to shift.

Your hand waving about Landauer’s principle is not a mechanism for the cell to gain information about the cause of the retinal to shift.

You have provided no mechanism for the cell to gain any information about the cause of the retinal to shift.

A trans retinal is not information about what caused it to shift from a cis retinal configuration.

But the presence of trans retinal is what initiates the visual reflex.

There is no possible mechanism for the cell to gain information about the energy.

Conservation of energy is not a mechanism. Landauer’s principle is not a mechanism.

You have no mechanism.

But I do. I have a cis retinal changing to trans retinal. That is a mechanism the cell can recognize.

The only thing the cell has evolved to recognize. All it needs to recognize to construct a visual experience.

The visual system is an evolved system designed to provide information about the world from the processing of light.

Nope. Information about molecular transformations are processed. No information about the light enters the nervous system. The nervous system has no mechanisms to understand what caused the retinal molecule to shift. The nervous system only has mechanisms that recognize the shift. The only thing the nervous system can work with is (+,-) information about cis to trans conformation changes.

The energy interacting with a retinal molecule causes one bond in a double bond of the molecule to break for an incredibly short period of time. But within that time the molecule rotates and becomes more stable.

This rotation is not not the same thing as a wave of energy. The new molecule is not the same thing as a wave of energy. The gained stability is not the same thing as a wave of energy. The new electromagnetic properties of the new molecule are not the same thing as a wave of energy.

Nothing about trans retinal could give the nervous system information about what caused it to be there.

The only thing the nervous system recognizes is the presence of trans retinal. That is a real world mechanism as opposed to your imaginary mechanism you can't name.

The nervous system has no mechanism to recognize why or how a cis retinal transformed into a trans retinal.

Color cannot possibly be a feature of energy.

 

[fromderinside]

Rest assured the rest of us know you are convinced just as was the grandfather of the one who brought us evolutionary theory was convinced even though his grandson brought in the evidence for evolutionary theory to stand. Unfortunately, like Erasmus Darwin, you never learned that dictates don't determine facts. You never have. Apparently you never will.

 

[untermensche]

That was the last gasp of a man who's ideas are dead and he doesn't have a clue.

Give me a mechanism in which the cell learns about the properties of energy.

There is only one mechanism within the cell involved in this.

The mechanism that recognizes a molecule has shifted from cis to trans.

No mechanism in the cell recognizes light. A molecule is transformed by light (colorless invisible energy of a specific level).

You are preaching woo.

You have no mechanism to do the things you claim can be done.

There is no mechanism within the cell to learn anything about the energy that caused retinal to shift.

That you are so clueless is amazing.

I blame a poor education and no ability to self educate. Many people are as deluded about this as you.

The absurd notion that color is a property of things in the world is common. Based entirely on the experience of a colorful world and nothing else.

You have common ridiculous ideas you can't defend.

Experience is colorful. Not the world. They are not the same thing.

 

[fromderinside]

Your problem not ours. The rest of us know cells don't know a jot about the properties of energy, nor should we care. They are just biological machines which work through using them. The point is that cells process energy which is processing information. That's the thing they do. Are you also going to say cells don't filter because filters are something developed by minds and cells don't have minds? If so I'd hate to be the one who has to listen to your explanations how cells process and distribute oxygen and ATP.

 

[steve_bank]

That was the last gasp of a man who's ideas are dead and he doesn't have a clue.

Give me a mechanism in which the cell learns about the properties of energy.

There is only one mechanism within the cell involved in this.

The mechanism that recognizes a molecule has shifted from cis to trans.

No mechanism in the cell recognizes light. A molecule is transformed by light (colorless invisible energy of a specific level).

You are preaching woo.

You have no mechanism to do the things you claim can be done.

There is no mechanism within the cell to learn anything about the energy that caused retinal to shift.

That you are so clueless is amazing.

I blame a poor education and no ability to self educate. Many people are as deluded about this as you.

The absurd notion that color is a property of things in the world is common. Based entirely on the experience of a colorful world and nothing else.

You have common ridiculous ideas you can't defend.

Experience is colorful. Not the world. They are not the same thing.

You are talking prose, fromderinside is taking quanttaive scince. You try to make the two eaqual which they are not.

Theists ignorant of science .

The seeing is contextual. Through my eyes I see the world. I 'see' what yiu are saying,a manner of speaking.

Cells do not' 'understand' in any cognitive human sense. It is a chemcial process mideld by scince.
reactions. Whether we have unconditioned free will or we are simply a sophistical level of instinctual responses is not provable.

Nothing mystical or philosophical. Thoughts are biological.

 

[DBT]

An intelligent system acquires and processes information, making decisions and taking actions according to sets of criteria. Criteria being a body of information that informs on the cost to benefit of taking this action over that action, or suffer this in the short term to gain that benefit in the long term.

 

[untermensche]

That was the last gasp of a man who's ideas are dead and he doesn't have a clue.

Give me a mechanism in which the cell learns about the properties of energy.

There is only one mechanism within the cell involved in this.

The mechanism that recognizes a molecule has shifted from cis to trans.

No mechanism in the cell recognizes light. A molecule is transformed by light (colorless invisible energy of a specific level).

You are preaching woo.

You have no mechanism to do the things you claim can be done.

There is no mechanism within the cell to learn anything about the energy that caused retinal to shift.

That you are so clueless is amazing.

I blame a poor education and no ability to self educate. Many people are as deluded about this as you.

The absurd notion that color is a property of things in the world is common. Based entirely on the experience of a colorful world and nothing else.

You have common ridiculous ideas you can't defend.

Experience is colorful. Not the world. They are not the same thing.

You are talking prose, fromderinside is taking quanttaive scince. You try to make the two eaqual which they are not.

Theists ignorant of science .

The seeing is contextual. Through my eyes I see the world. I 'see' what yiu are saying,a manner of speaking.

Cells do not' 'understand' in any cognitive human sense. It is a chemcial process mideld by scince.
reactions. Whether we have unconditioned free will or we are simply a sophistical level of instinctual responses is not provable.

Nothing mystical or philosophical. Thoughts are biological.

What you call prose are logical arguments.

He is just wrong.

The nervous system creates the visual experience entirely from (+,-) information about cis to trans retinal configurations.

Color is associated with energy. Energy is what transforms the retinal.

But color is not a property of the energy.

Just like when I hit a switch and turn on a light.

The light is associated with my hand but can't possibly be a property of my hand.

Color can't possibly be a property of light.

Color is something in the mind.

Not the world.

The world has no color.

Some people confuse their mind with the world.

But they are two distinct things.

 

[untermensche]

Your problem not ours. The rest of us know cells don't know a jot about the properties of energy, nor should we care. They are just biological machines which work through using them. The point is that cells process energy which is processing information. That's the thing they do. Are you also going to say cells don't filter because filters are something developed by minds and cells don't have minds? If so I'd hate to be the one who has to listen to your explanations how cells process and distribute oxygen and ATP.

Cells do not process energy.

They do nothing with the energy. A molecule reacts to it. And a cis to trans molecular shift is not information about what caused the shift. The shift can be catalyzed in several ways. There is no information about the light within the new molecule to transfer to the cell.

Cells process (+,-) information about molecular transformations.

The cell has mechanisms that recognize and process this (+,-) information.

There is no possible mechanism for a cell to process so-called light energy.

The visual reflex is far more complex than you understand.

I have a mechanism.

You have woo.

 

[untermensche]

An intelligent system acquires and processes information, making decisions and taking actions according to sets of criteria. Criteria being a body of information that informs on the cost to benefit of taking this action over that action, or suffer this in the short term to gain that benefit in the long term.

A system can only process information it has mechanisms to recognize.

The nervous system has mechanisms that recognize the presence of trans retinal.

The system does nothing when cis retinal is in the cell.

But when it is converted to trans retinal the cell recognizes the trans retinal and reacts reflexively.

The cell has mechanisms that recognize trans retinal.

The cell has no mechanisms that can get information from the light.

Color is something that exists within the visual experience. The brain creates the visual experience using genetically created processes from (+,-) information about cis to trans transformations.

Color does not exist as a property of things in the world. It is a property of the mind. The mind experiences color, not the brain. The brain reflexively creates the experience of color when cells react to the presence of trans retinal.

Thinking color exists in the world or in energy is woo.

And the world is filled with this woo.

 

[steve_bank]

There is no debate or argument over the chemistry of biology, unless you want to invoke outmoded metaphysics.

There is no argument over 'mind' being a biological process. It is well understood that damage to specific areas of the brain affect specific functions. I had a subdural hematoma that put pressure on my speech center, I had speech aphasia until it was drained. I could imagine words but nothing came out when I tried to speak.


Stroke victims.


Metaphysics is like a dog chasing its tail. It is a lot of fun for the dog, but it never quite gets there. It would be pointless to try to explain to the dog it is a useless effort....a human would presumably be smarter than that.

 

[fromderinside]

The cell has no mechanisms that can get information from the light.

.

falsified by:

[h=1]Photoreceptor Molecules in the Eye Detect Visible Light https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22541/[/h]Q.E.D.

 

[untermensche]

The cell has no mechanisms that can get information from the light.

.

falsified by:

[h=1]Photoreceptor Molecules in the Eye Detect Visible Light https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22541/[/h]Q.E.D.

...This isomerization causes the Schiff-base nitrogen atom to move approximately 5 Å, assuming that the cyclohexane ring of the retinal group remains fixed. In essence, the light energy of a photon is converted into atomic motion. The change in atomic positions, like the binding of a ligand to other 7TM receptors, sets in train a series of events that lead to the closing of ion channels and the generation of a nerve impulse.....

This clearly says what is happening. Light energy is converted, not recognized.

The cell most definitely does not detect energy. And the molecule really does not detect it. The title is misleading and poor.

Protein complexes in the cell react to a 5 angstrom shift of a nitrogen atom. And this movement sets off a reflexive cascade. The visual reflex.

The cell has a mechanism to react to the movement of the nitrogen atom. Not detect. React to. That is a real mechanism. You have no mechanism.

Despite the bad title which is not accurate.

Reaction is not detection.

Molecules do not detect energy. The word "detection' is used so loosely here it is inaccurate. The molecule reacts to energy of a certain level. Thus there is an association between energy of a certain level and the movement of the molecule. But the movement of a nitrogen atom 5 angstroms is not information about the energy that caused it. The amount of movement is related to the electromagnetic properties and bonds within the entire molecule. Not related at all to the wavelength of energy that allowed the molecule to shift.

You have provided no mechanism for a cell to know anything about energy.

The cell has mechanism that react to the movement of a nitrogen atom. That is the initiation mechanism. There is no mechanism to recognize the energy.

Color cannot possibly be a property of energy.

 

[untermensche]

There is no debate or argument over the chemistry of biology, unless you want to invoke outmoded metaphysics.

Huh?

You have to know what something is before you can look at the physics or chemistry of it.

Science does not have a clue what the mind is, what the phenomena of experience is.

Why do you hear your thoughts but not me?

What are thoughts in language such that you can hear them?

Where are "you" the thing that hears your thoughts?

Science can't answer these questions.

There is no argument over 'mind' being a biological process.

Minds are associated with brains but they are more than brains.

Minds experience thoughts and vision and all the senses, brains don't experience, they create experience. Create it for a mind.

Brains are reflexive machines.

Minds write poetry and enjoy it.

It is well understood that damage to specific areas of the brain affect specific functions.

Brains and minds have an association.

The analogy is: A mind getting information and controlling movement is like a person driving a car.

If the car blows a tire (has a stroke) the car does not handle very well anymore.