COLOUR

[untermensche]

Such arrogance from a position of ignorance. I suggest that you look in the mirror and question your own assumptions.

You couldn't show me one error I have made here.

I'm in the position of being absolutely right. Color information does not exist in energy.

You clearly don't want to engage in anything like an exchange of ideas.

You call ideas "declarations" like that has any meaning so you can fool yourself and run away from all ideas you can't handle.

I deal with ideas.

You run from them and call them "declarations".

Yes ideas are declarations in words. You have that much right.

Just offhand, wavelength is the information used by a brain to represent as colour in mental/subjective form. The physical world is composed of features and qualities, which is information, which the brain is an information processor....

No.

Wavelength is something humans know about. In their minds. The nervous system knows nothing about wavelength.

Cells have no mechanism that can recognize what causes the retinal molecule to shift. If you disagree, show me the mechanism.

The cells only have mechanisms that recognize that a shift of cis retinal to trans retinal has occurred.

This molecular shift is the first piece of information available to the nervous system.

The event that starts the visual reflex is the molecular shift of retinal. The cell has mechanisms that react to the shift.

The cell has no evolved mechanism that reacts to the energy.

The cell has a molecule within it that did not evolve that reacts to the energy. Molecules do not evolve.

Recognition can only be made with an evolved mechanism.

If you want to claim the cell can recognize wavelength show me the mechanism.

 

[untermensche]

Over where? That phrase is something Seinfeld watchers are very familiar with.



It's a general term but nothing imprecise about it. And it is up to those who claim energy somehow passes information to the nervous system to prove it. There is no way to prove it. Because it doesn't happen. We know what the energy is doing. There is no possible mechanism for energy to pass information to the nervous system.



Nonsense.



Color is not a feature of energy. There is no information about color in energy.

From that a lot follows. Like color is a creation of the brain, not a property of objects in the world.

Objects reflect energy. That is their property. What human brains have evolved to make out of those reflections (colors) are not properties of the objects. They are properties of brains and minds.

Color is a property of the brain and the mind. Not a property of objects in the world.

There is no possible way for colors to be a property of objects in the world. We are not perceiving objects in the world. We are perceiving a representation of them within our minds.

Are you arguing conciousness and awareness and perceptions are not based in physical biology?

Why would you think that?

There is something else?

I don't think so. The mind is a biological product and it is not a brain.

Perception is not biology?

What is perceiving?

Color is something other than cells interacting with radiation?

Most definitely. Color is an experience and nothing else. It is not colorless invisible energy interacting with a molecule in cells.

A precise general term is oxymoron. Weak attempt at turning the table.

AAaannnddd....drum roll.... experience is biological unless you argue mind separate from brain. Thoughts and feelings are biological.

Beware The Jabberwock.

Nothing imprecise about the word "information".

It has very specific features.

It is something that can be recognized for one thing.

Without recognition there is no information transfer.

 

[DBT]

Just offhand, wavelength is the information used by a brain to represent as colour in mental/subjective form. The physical world is composed of features and qualities, which is information, which the brain is an information processor....

No.

Wavelength is something humans know about. In their minds. The nervous system knows nothing about wavelength.

Cells have no mechanism that can recognize what causes the retinal molecule to shift. If you disagree, show me the mechanism.

The cells only have mechanisms that recognize that a shift of cis retinal to trans retinal has occurred.

This molecular shift is the first piece of information available to the nervous system.

The event that starts the visual reflex is the molecular shift of retinal. The cell has mechanisms that react to the shift.

The cell has no evolved mechanism that reacts to the energy.

The cell has a molecule within it that did not evolve that reacts to the energy. Molecules do not evolve.

Recognition can only be made with an evolved mechanism.

If you want to claim the cell can recognize wavelength show me the mechanism.

You are adding your own twist.

At no point did I say or suggest that cells can ''recognize'' wavelength. Detection and 'recognition' are not the same. That is an interpretation of your own making.

Stop doing it.

Basically speaking, wavelength is interpreted by the brain as colour.

The basics:

How humans perceive light
''How does light gets converted to colors? When visible light hits something, some of the light gets absorbed, but some of it reflects off. When we look at something, what we see is the light that bounces off of it, and into our eyes.

When light enters our eyes, photosensitive cells called cones and rods interpret the light and send signals to our brain. The rod cells interpret light and darkness (black and white), while the cone cells interpret three different wavelengths which our brain interprets as color.

There are three types of cones. They are short-wavelength (blue cells), middle-wavelength (green cells), and long-wavelength (red cells).''

 

[untermensche]

Just offhand, wavelength is the information used by a brain to represent as colour in mental/subjective form. The physical world is composed of features and qualities, which is information, which the brain is an information processor....

No.

Wavelength is something humans know about. In their minds. The nervous system knows nothing about wavelength.

Cells have no mechanism that can recognize what causes the retinal molecule to shift. If you disagree, show me the mechanism.

The cells only have mechanisms that recognize that a shift of cis retinal to trans retinal has occurred.

This molecular shift is the first piece of information available to the nervous system.

The event that starts the visual reflex is the molecular shift of retinal. The cell has mechanisms that react to the shift.

The cell has no evolved mechanism that reacts to the energy.

The cell has a molecule within it that did not evolve that reacts to the energy. Molecules do not evolve.

Recognition can only be made with an evolved mechanism.

If you want to claim the cell can recognize wavelength show me the mechanism.

You are adding your own twist.

At no point did I say or suggest that cells can ''recognize'' wavelength. Detection and 'recognition' are not the same. That is an interpretation of your own making.

The facts are not my twist.

If the cell has no mechanism to recognize energy then color cannot be a feature of energy.

For color to be a feature of energy the energy must have a way to pass that information. Transforming a molecule is not a mechanism to transfer information about the energy.

The mechanism in the cell is a mechanism that reacts to the movement of a nitrogen atom that moved because a retinal molecule shifted from cis to trans.

That is a real mechanism.

There is no mechanism that tells the cell why the nitrogen atom moved. If you understand that then you understand.

It is impossible that colors are created using information from energy.

The only information the cell has is information about is the movement of a nitrogen atom. The cell has no mechanism to gain information about energy.

If you disagree give me a mechanism.

Those that think colors are a property of objects are mistaken. Color is an experience of the mind. Color is created by evolved brains. It is nothing else.

If you can't experience "red" then you know nothing about "red". Red is not a feature of energy. That is impossible.

 

[fromderinside]

OK input is light and orientation transmitted as neural bits (impulses). The sensors are a system of specific frequencies of light reactive cells over a viewed region of light containing space. Every receptor is polled a number of times and nerve impulses are transmitted cortex-word. Feedback is included from responsive cells upstream modulating subsequent output of cells in a variety of networks.

Are you saying you know that the from whence by type by where cannot be recovered from that system of cell impulses in a system only responding to light when studies show that cortical cells order signals by color and orientation. Are you nuts?

Of course digits can be reconstructed from a sets of inputs only driven by location and color to reflect color and orientation. The ascending modulated networks are the programs which translate digits into representations signaled at cortex, recorded and verified by scientists as representing color by orientation.

Confirmation is in the fact that use specific sensitivities at receptor substances form the proper base for the actual color table reflected in human light perceptions.

The gun pointed at your head is fully loaded by science such that if you pull the trigger your position will die.

I've just showed you there is rain on street and driveway of your house and in your neighborhood. There are clouds moving away raining. It rained at your house.

 

[DBT]

You are adding your own twist.

At no point did I say or suggest that cells can ''recognize'' wavelength. Detection and 'recognition' are not the same. That is an interpretation of your own making.

The facts are not my twist.

If the cell has no mechanism to recognize energy then color cannot be a feature of energy.

For color to be a feature of energy the energy must have a way to pass that information. Transforming a molecule is not a mechanism to transfer information about the energy.

The mechanism in the cell is a mechanism that reacts to the movement of a nitrogen atom that moved because a retinal molecule shifted from cis to trans.

That is a real mechanism.

There is no mechanism that tells the cell why the nitrogen atom moved. If you understand that then you understand.

It is impossible that colors are created using information from energy.

The only information the cell has is information about is the movement of a nitrogen atom. The cell has no mechanism to gain information about energy.

If you disagree give me a mechanism.

Those that think colors are a property of objects are mistaken. Color is an experience of the mind. Color is created by evolved brains. It is nothing else.

If you can't experience "red" then you know nothing about "red". Red is not a feature of energy. That is impossible.

You ignore whatever is said and just argue with a Strawman of your own making. Colour perception is not arbitrary. It is based on information acquired via the senses.

Wavelength is information.

Again;

''When light enters our eyes, photosensitive cells called cones and rods interpret the light and send signals to our brain. The rod cells interpret light and darkness (black and white), while the cone cells interpret three different wavelengths which our brain interprets as color.''

 

[untermensche]

You are adding your own twist.

At no point did I say or suggest that cells can ''recognize'' wavelength. Detection and 'recognition' are not the same. That is an interpretation of your own making.

The facts are not my twist.

If the cell has no mechanism to recognize energy then color cannot be a feature of energy.

For color to be a feature of energy the energy must have a way to pass that information. Transforming a molecule is not a mechanism to transfer information about the energy.

The mechanism in the cell is a mechanism that reacts to the movement of a nitrogen atom that moved because a retinal molecule shifted from cis to trans.

That is a real mechanism.

There is no mechanism that tells the cell why the nitrogen atom moved. If you understand that then you understand.

It is impossible that colors are created using information from energy.

The only information the cell has is information about is the movement of a nitrogen atom. The cell has no mechanism to gain information about energy.

If you disagree give me a mechanism.

Those that think colors are a property of objects are mistaken. Color is an experience of the mind. Color is created by evolved brains. It is nothing else.

If you can't experience "red" then you know nothing about "red". Red is not a feature of energy. That is impossible.

You ignore whatever is said and just argue with a Strawman of your own making. Colour perception is not arbitrary. It is based on information acquired via the senses.

Wavelength is information.

Again;

''When light enters our eyes, photosensitive cells called cones and rods interpret the light and send signals to our brain. The rod cells interpret light and darkness (black and white), while the cone cells interpret three different wavelengths which our brain interprets as color.''

Wavelength is something humans have learned about. It is not something the nervous system has information about.

You are wrong and I already proved it. You not understanding any of it is par for the course.

You have some simple minded story about color you believe.

Join the club.

Most people are wrong about this. Most so-called scientists are wrong about this.

Most people think objects have color as a property because that is how they continually experience them. They never once stop to understand they are experiencing with the filter of their minds, not experiencing anything directly.

Most people are like you, lost on this matter.

Show me a mechanism where the nervous system learns about wavelength.

I gave you the mechanism that initiates the visual reflex, the movement of a nitrogen atom due to a molecular shift of retinal from a cis configuration to a trans configuration. That is all the cell has mechanisms to recognize. Cells have no mechanism to recognize wavelength.

My mechanism is reduced to the movement of one atom. It can't be reduced further.

Put up or shut up.

Show me your specific mechanism for a cell to recognize wavelength or try to understand what I already understand very well.

photosensitive cells called cones and rods interpret the light and send signals to our brain

This is totally false.

Rods and cones process information about the movement of millions and millions of nitrogen atoms.

They do not "interpret the light". The light energy is converted to molecular energy. This is not a mechanism to pass the cell information about itself.

The light energy that doesn't cause a molecule to shift does absolutely nothing to the nervous system.

You have a simple minded story that is false.

And I understand what is going on to the atomic level.

I have a mechanism.

You once again have nothing but faith in stories told by the ignorant.

Give me a mechanism. Give me a mechanism that allows the cell to gain information about wavelengths or about any feature of the energy.

Put up or shut up.

 

[untermensche]

OK input is light and orientation transmitted as neural bits (impulses). The sensors are a system of specific frequencies of light reactive cells over a viewed region of light containing space. Every receptor is polled a number of times and nerve impulses are transmitted cortex-word. Feedback is included from responsive cells upstream modulating subsequent output of cells in a variety of networks.

Are you saying you know that the from whence by type by where cannot be recovered from that system of cell impulses in a system only responding to light when studies show that cortical cells order signals by color and orientation. Are you nuts?

Of course digits can be reconstructed from a sets of inputs only driven by location and color to reflect color and orientation. The ascending modulated networks are the programs which translate digits into representations signaled at cortex, recorded and verified by scientists as representing color by orientation.

Confirmation is in the fact that use specific sensitivities at receptor substances form the proper base for the actual color table reflected in human light perceptions.

The gun pointed at your head is fully loaded by science such that if you pull the trigger your position will die.

I've just showed you there is rain on street and driveway of your house and in your neighborhood. There are clouds moving away raining. It rained at your house.

Light is not input.

Light is a hand that hits a switch.

The switch is a mere molecule. Not a cellular mechanism.

The cell has no mechanism to recognize light. Reaction to does not equal recognition of.

It has mechanisms that react to the movement of a nitrogen atom due to a molecular shift of retinal.

You have no mechanism.

You have nothing.

There is an association between specific wavelengths and specific colors produced.

But the brain is not using information from energy to construct the colors. It is using evolved internal mechanism.

Light is not a cellular mechanism. The mechanism here has been reduced to the movement of a nitrogen atom 5 angstroms. There is no other initial cellular mechanism. Down stream processes reacting to (+,-) information about the movement of a nitrogen atom create the visual reflex. That processing begins immediately.

The brain has no information about wavelengths. The brain has no way to get that information.

 

[DBT]

You ignore whatever is said and just argue with a Strawman of your own making. Colour perception is not arbitrary. It is based on information acquired via the senses.

Wavelength is information.

Again;

''When light enters our eyes, photosensitive cells called cones and rods interpret the light and send signals to our brain. The rod cells interpret light and darkness (black and white), while the cone cells interpret three different wavelengths which our brain interprets as color.''

Wavelength is something humans have learned about. It is not something the nervous system has information about.

You are wrong and I already proved it. You not understanding any of it is par for the course.

You have some simple minded story about color you believe.

Join the club.

Most people are wrong about this. Most so-called scientists are wrong about this.

Most people think objects have color as a property because that is how they continually experience them. They never once stop to understand they are experiencing with the filter of their minds, not experiencing anything directly.

Most people are like you, lost on this matter.

Show me a mechanism where the nervous system learns about wavelength.

I gave you the mechanism that initiates the visual reflex, the movement of a nitrogen atom due to a molecular shift of retinal from a cis configuration to a trans configuration. That is all the cell has mechanisms to recognize. Cells have no mechanism to recognize wavelength.

My mechanism is reduced to the movement of one atom. It can't be reduced further.

Put up or shut up.

Show me your specific mechanism for a cell to recognize wavelength or try to understand what I already understand very well.

photosensitive cells called cones and rods interpret the light and send signals to our brain

This is totally false.

Rods and cones process information about the movement of millions and millions of nitrogen atoms.

They do not "interpret the light". The light energy is converted to molecular energy. This is not a mechanism to pass the cell information about itself.

The light energy that doesn't cause a molecule to shift does absolutely nothing to the nervous system.

You have a simple minded story that is false.

And I understand what is going on to the atomic level.

I have a mechanism.

You once again have nothing but faith in stories told by the ignorant.

Give me a mechanism. Give me a mechanism that allows the cell to gain information about wavelengths or about any feature of the energy.

Put up or shut up.

You need to do a bit of homework. The information is readily available.

I shouldn't have to spoon feed you.

Starting with the basics;

''You can see in the drawing on the left that the back of the eye is lined with a thin layer called the retina. This is where the photoreceptors are located. If you think of the eye as a camera, the retina would be the film. The retina also contains the nerves that tell the brain what the photoreceptors are "seeing."

There are two types of photoreceptors involved in sight: rods and cones''

Take a close look at the photoreceptors in the drawings above and below. The disks in the outer segments (to the right) are where photoreceptor proteins are held and light is absorbed. Rods have a protein called rhodopsin and cones have photopsins. But wait...these are stuck in the back of the retina. That means that the light is absorbed closer to the outside of the eye.

How Do We See the Color White?
Our eyes are detectors. Cones that are stimulated by light send signals to the brain. The brain is the actual interpreter of color. When all the cones are stimulated equally the brain perceives the color as white. We also perceive the color white when our rods are stimulated. Unlike cones, rods are able to detect light at a much lower level. This is why we see only black and white in dimly lighted rooms or while out viewing a star-filled night sky.''

 

[fromderinside]

Untermensche your analysis is flawed.

Light frequency clearly triggers a molecule in the receptor to institute a processes, one even you admit is a cascade, to trigger processes that initiate action potentials from the receptor to surrounding neural cells via several types of chemical activation, any of which may contain information about frequency, orientation, cell location, suitable to initiate further impulses upstream in the visual pathways in the brain.

You cannot rule out whether such information is passed or whether processes to which the impulses arrive do or do not trigger processes which do further add information about what is going on.

As a graduate student I carried out modelling of action processes from a sensory system which communicated acoustic information to other nerve processes. It is a simple matter of initiating different mechanical processes in neurons suitable for transferring specific information to another cells via known chemical processes depending on what information one desires to impart upstream.

There are positive, negative, electron charge, different chemical ion flows one can initiate which will lead to getting desired neurons to respond with further transmission to other neurons. I was doing this in the early seventies before most knew about the actual variety and specificity transmitters substances and receptor processes could be engaged so I was just touching the tip of neural information conduction iceberg.

Plus I replicated a histological study where I traced neural l processes from receptor organ to inner and outer hair cells via electron microscope, not unlike the work Kolb reported in 2003, and 2017 for the eye. there are a variety of opportunities for information to be specifically compartmented by whichever process and whichever network the process passes that are beyond count even now for anyone to make the blanket statements you utter.

What I can't understand is how you can be so cavalier with so little information about what and how the nervous system works just to continue this fantasy of no frequency no information in the face of obvious processes demonstrating both are deployed and manipulated within the visual nervous system even at the receptor.

The time for grabbing elementary process gadgets has passed. You need to come up with substantial reasons why a very complete and capable nervous system can't do what seems to be the obvious. So far you haven't passed muster at any stage of this discussion, not even one where you justify your notion a relation between mind and brain.

You philosophical discussion lacks support of the physical processes to meet the philosophical objective you have pumped up.

 

[untermensche]

Wavelength is something humans have learned about. It is not something the nervous system has information about.

You are wrong and I already proved it. You not understanding any of it is par for the course.

You have some simple minded story about color you believe.

Join the club.

Most people are wrong about this. Most so-called scientists are wrong about this.

Most people think objects have color as a property because that is how they continually experience them. They never once stop to understand they are experiencing with the filter of their minds, not experiencing anything directly.

Most people are like you, lost on this matter.

Show me a mechanism where the nervous system learns about wavelength.

I gave you the mechanism that initiates the visual reflex, the movement of a nitrogen atom due to a molecular shift of retinal from a cis configuration to a trans configuration. That is all the cell has mechanisms to recognize. Cells have no mechanism to recognize wavelength.

My mechanism is reduced to the movement of one atom. It can't be reduced further.

Put up or shut up.

Show me your specific mechanism for a cell to recognize wavelength or try to understand what I already understand very well.



This is totally false.

Rods and cones process information about the movement of millions and millions of nitrogen atoms.

They do not "interpret the light". The light energy is converted to molecular energy. This is not a mechanism to pass the cell information about itself.

The light energy that doesn't cause a molecule to shift does absolutely nothing to the nervous system.

You have a simple minded story that is false.

And I understand what is going on to the atomic level.

I have a mechanism.

You once again have nothing but faith in stories told by the ignorant.

Give me a mechanism. Give me a mechanism that allows the cell to gain information about wavelengths or about any feature of the energy.

Put up or shut up.

You need to do a bit of homework. The information is readily available.

I shouldn't have to spoon feed you.'

You haven't shown me anything.

You have shown me NOTHING BUT downstream processing, that looks all colorful because that is how the mind perceives the world. You wasted your and my time because you don't understand what I'm saying.

The visual reflex begins with a 5 angstrom movement of a Nitrogen atom because a cis retinal converted to a trans retinal.

Nothing you have shown me is a mechanism for the nervous system to know about the energy that caused cis retinal to convert to trans retinal.

You failed.

You have no rational mechanism.

I know that after the cells react to the movement of the Nitrogen atom a lot of downstream processing occurs.

Stop talking about downstream processing.

You look like you have no clue what I'm talking about when you do it.

I'm talking about the INITIATION of the visual reflex. And how this initiation is not an information gathering device learning about energy.

Stop looking foolish with talk of downstream processing. That is what talking about cones and rods is. Talk about something removed from the initiation step. The molecular conversion of retinal. We fully understand everything the light is doing. It is converting cis retinal to trans retinal. That is all the energy is doing. It is not passing information.

The end result of the downstream processing of the information about the conversion of cis retinal to trans retinal (the only thing any of the energy in the entire 'visual' spectrum can do) is the brain creates a color and the person experiences it.

You clearly don't understand what a mechanism to learn about the energy is.

That is your task.

Give me a mechanism that allows the cell to learn about the energy.

If the cell can not get information about the energy, and it can not unless there is a specific mechanism, then color information cannot be contained within the energy.

Once again my only problem is I fully understand this and I am dealing with you.

 

[untermensche]

Untermensche your analysis is flawed.

Light frequency clearly triggers a molecule in the receptor to institute a processes, one even you admit is a cascade, to trigger processes that initiate action potentials from the receptor to surrounding neural cells via several types of chemical activation, any of which may contain information about frequency, orientation, cell location, suitable to initiate further impulses upstream in the visual pathways in the brain.

Nope. The energy does not know what it is triggering. It is just blindly converting some molecule it has run into.

That is not a mechanism to pass information about itself.

Converting a molecule from cis to trans is not passing information.

Radiant energy converting to molecular energy is not passing information about the radiant energy. That radiant energy now is part of the energy of an entire molecule which fluctuates that just stabilized and released some different amount of energy.

Of this we are certain.

There is not the slightest doubt that color is not a property of objects or so-called 'light' energy.

"Light" energy is an anthropocentric term.

There is nothing special about the energy. It does not carry extra information.

It is just the energy that causes cis retinal to convert to trans retinal. That is all it does.

It does not have some magic way to tell the nervous system about itself.

The same with vibrations of air.

They have no way to pass information about sound. No mechanism.

They are merely a hand pushing a switch like turning on a light on the wall. No information is passed.

The sensory cells are nothing but little switches that can be turned on by "hands" (energy) moving about in the external world.

Evolution is not a process where cells learn about the properties of energy. It is a process where nervous systems have evolved to make specific things when specific "switches" have been moved.

All the nervous system knows about is the movement of switches.

Like the light on the wall.

Minds on the other hand know a bit more.

 

[DBT]

Wavelength is something humans have learned about. It is not something the nervous system has information about.

You are wrong and I already proved it. You not understanding any of it is par for the course.

You have some simple minded story about color you believe.

Join the club.

Most people are wrong about this. Most so-called scientists are wrong about this.

Most people think objects have color as a property because that is how they continually experience them. They never once stop to understand they are experiencing with the filter of their minds, not experiencing anything directly.

Most people are like you, lost on this matter.

Show me a mechanism where the nervous system learns about wavelength.

I gave you the mechanism that initiates the visual reflex, the movement of a nitrogen atom due to a molecular shift of retinal from a cis configuration to a trans configuration. That is all the cell has mechanisms to recognize. Cells have no mechanism to recognize wavelength.

My mechanism is reduced to the movement of one atom. It can't be reduced further.

Put up or shut up.

Show me your specific mechanism for a cell to recognize wavelength or try to understand what I already understand very well.



This is totally false.

Rods and cones process information about the movement of millions and millions of nitrogen atoms.

They do not "interpret the light". The light energy is converted to molecular energy. This is not a mechanism to pass the cell information about itself.

The light energy that doesn't cause a molecule to shift does absolutely nothing to the nervous system.

You have a simple minded story that is false.

And I understand what is going on to the atomic level.

I have a mechanism.

You once again have nothing but faith in stories told by the ignorant.

Give me a mechanism. Give me a mechanism that allows the cell to gain information about wavelengths or about any feature of the energy.

Put up or shut up.

You need to do a bit of homework. The information is readily available.

I shouldn't have to spoon feed you.'

You haven't shown me anything.

You have shown me NOTHING BUT downstream processing, that looks all colorful because that is how the mind perceives the world. You wasted your and my time because you don't understand what I'm saying.

The visual reflex begins with a 5 angstrom movement of a Nitrogen atom because a cis retinal converted to a trans retinal.

Nothing you have shown me is a mechanism for the nervous system to know about the energy that caused cis retinal to convert to trans retinal.

You failed.

You have no rational mechanism.

I know that after the cells react to the movement of the Nitrogen atom a lot of downstream processing occurs.

Stop talking about downstream processing.

You look like you have no clue what I'm talking about when you do it.

I'm talking about the INITIATION of the visual reflex. And how this initiation is not an information gathering device learning about energy.

Stop looking foolish with talk of downstream processing. That is what talking about cones and rods is. Talk about something removed from the initiation step. The molecular conversion of retinal. We fully understand everything the light is doing. It is converting cis retinal to trans retinal. That is all the energy is doing. It is not passing information.

The end result of the downstream processing of the information about the conversion of cis retinal to trans retinal (the only thing any of the energy in the entire 'visual' spectrum can do) is the brain creates a color and the person experiences it.

You clearly don't understand what a mechanism to learn about the energy is.

That is your task.

Give me a mechanism that allows the cell to learn about the energy.

If the cell can not get information about the energy, and it can not unless there is a specific mechanism, then color information cannot be contained within the energy.

Once again my only problem is I fully understand this and I am dealing with you.

No, you are still blowing your smokescreen of denial. Furiously building your Strawman, over and over as each one gets burnt. Does wavelength ring a bell?

What I am doing is pointing out that cognition, sensory phenomena...sight in this instance, begins with input, detection, information transmission via optic nerves to visual cortex, memory integration enabling recognition, etc, etc.

The whole package is the work of a brain: acquiring and processing information and representing some of that information in conscious form is carried out by a brain.

The brain creates sight. The brain creates hearing, smell, touch, taste, the brain creates thoughts and feelings. The brain initiates motor actions.


Colour vision
''Most image-forming animal eyes encode light as a function of space, time, and wavelength. “Colour vision” is associated with the latter. At its most fundamental level, decoding wavelength information in light requires combining the signals from just two spectrally distinct photoreceptors neurons. Such a basic circuit does not require sophisticated eye optics, and accordingly forms of rudimentary spectral opponency is thought to long predate image forming vision. “Colour vision” was therefore probably also already a key staple ingredient of retinal circuits when early proto-vertebrates began evolving full-blown eyes during the Cambrian. ''

 

[untermensche]

You haven't shown me anything.

You have shown me NOTHING BUT downstream processing, that looks all colorful because that is how the mind perceives the world. You wasted your and my time because you don't understand what I'm saying.

The visual reflex begins with a 5 angstrom movement of a Nitrogen atom because a cis retinal converted to a trans retinal.

Nothing you have shown me is a mechanism for the nervous system to know about the energy that caused cis retinal to convert to trans retinal.

You failed.

You have no rational mechanism.

I know that after the cells react to the movement of the Nitrogen atom a lot of downstream processing occurs.

Stop talking about downstream processing.

You look like you have no clue what I'm talking about when you do it.

I'm talking about the INITIATION of the visual reflex. And how this initiation is not an information gathering device learning about energy.

Stop looking foolish with talk of downstream processing. That is what talking about cones and rods is. Talk about something removed from the initiation step. The molecular conversion of retinal. We fully understand everything the light is doing. It is converting cis retinal to trans retinal. That is all the energy is doing. It is not passing information.

The end result of the downstream processing of the information about the conversion of cis retinal to trans retinal (the only thing any of the energy in the entire 'visual' spectrum can do) is the brain creates a color and the person experiences it.

You clearly don't understand what a mechanism to learn about the energy is.

That is your task.

Give me a mechanism that allows the cell to learn about the energy.

If the cell can not get information about the energy, and it can not unless there is a specific mechanism, then color information cannot be contained within the energy.

Once again my only problem is I fully understand this and I am dealing with you.

No, you are still blowing your smokescreen of denial. Furiously building your Strawman, over and over as each one gets burnt. Does wavelength ring a bell?

Yeah. I've asked you many times for a mechanism where the brain learns about wavelength.

And you don't understand the question.

You think the nervous system can know about wavelength with no cellular mechanism. A rod and a cone do not learn about wavelength. They have no mechanism to learn about wavelength. They learn about the movement of Nitrogen in many cells and begin to process that information.

What I am doing is pointing out that cognition, sensory phenomena...sight in this instance, begins with input, detection,

What I've tried to explain several times is the entire INPUT into the nervous system is the evolved mechanism that reacts to the movement of a Nitrogen atom. I have a real mechanism. You have NO mechanism.

That is the first cellular mechanism in the visual reflex.

The cell does not recognize light energy.

It recognizes nothing but the movement of a Nitrogen atom.

From the movement of millions of Nitrogen atoms the nervous system reflexively creates the visual experience. It has evolved mechanisms that do that.

The nervous system knows nothing about energy and therefore color cannot possibly be a feature of energy or of objects in the world.

The visual experience is a creation. The whole thing.

So-called "Light" only does one thing. It is energy. It does things. It is not a spy passing on information. Energy hitting a cis retinal molecule transforms it to a trans configuration (I doubt you know what that means).

That is all the energy within the entire so-called "visual spectrum" does. The brain does ALL the rest.

We do not "see" colors. We experience colors. If you can understand that then you understand.

 

[Jarhyn]

I think after reading some of this, my own perspective may be useful:

The chair is not, specifically "red". The chair DOES have a primacy of available excitation states in the (red bandwidth range). Thus whole the chair is not, specifically, red, the chair has a tendency to only reflect red light.

Thus while objects do not really have color, they do really have SOMETHING, even if it's just a tendency to spit back light of specific wavelengths preferentially.

 

[untermensche]

I think after reading some of this, my own perspective may be useful:

The chair is not, specifically "red". The chair DOES have a primacy of available excitation states in the (red bandwidth range). Thus whole the chair is not, specifically, red, the chair has a tendency to only reflect red light.

Thus while objects do not really have color, they do really have SOMETHING, even if it's just a tendency to spit back light of specific wavelengths preferentially.

There is no such thing as "red light". We can loosely call it "red light" based on the nervous systems reaction to it but it has no information about red in it.

There is no radiant energy that carries information about color around.

There is radiant energy of a certain level that can cause an evolved brain to reflexively create the experience of red.

The visual experience is a virtual reality. A representation of the external world. Not the actual external world.

When we reach out and touch something we are experiencing the resistance of real objects.

What we experience about these objects in vision is a creation of the brain. Color is purely a brain creation. It is nothing else.

To actually know about green you have to experience it. There is no other way. There is no other way to get information about green. Knowing about the stimulus that causes the brain to create green isn't knowing anything about green.

Give some martian scientist that doesn't experience vision the way humans do all the information we have about so-called "green light" and they will never say the energy creates "green". They will never find any information about "green" in it.

We take the incredible work of our brains for granted.

We turn our head to the apple and focus on it and the brain instantly creates "red". And the brain creates "red" for as long as we look at it. So some conclude the apple must be red.

They don't understand they are experiencing the apple with their mind. Through the filter and creative nature of their brain. Not experiencing the real thing.

 

[DBT]

Yeah. I've asked you many times for a mechanism where the brain learns about wavelength.

And you don't understand the question.

You think the nervous system can know about wavelength with no cellular mechanism. A rod and a cone do not learn about wavelength. They have no mechanism to learn about wavelength. They learn about the movement of Nitrogen in many cells and begin to process that information.

What I am doing is pointing out that cognition, sensory phenomena...sight in this instance, begins with input, detection,

What I've tried to explain several times is the entire INPUT into the nervous system is the evolved mechanism that reacts to the movement of a Nitrogen atom. I have a real mechanism. You have NO mechanism.

That is the first cellular mechanism in the visual reflex.

The cell does not recognize light energy.

It recognizes nothing but the movement of a Nitrogen atom.

From the movement of millions of Nitrogen atoms the nervous system reflexively creates the visual experience. It has evolved mechanisms that do that.

The nervous system knows nothing about energy and therefore color cannot possibly be a feature of energy or of objects in the world.

The visual experience is a creation. The whole thing.

So-called "Light" only does one thing. It is energy. It does things. It is not a spy passing on information. Energy hitting a cis retinal molecule transforms it to a trans configuration (I doubt you know what that means).

That is all the energy within the entire so-called "visual spectrum" does. The brain does ALL the rest.

We do not "see" colors. We experience colors. If you can understand that then you understand.

Vision is another word for seeing, seeing is an experience. There is no division or separation between seeing, vision or the experience/phenomena of Vision.

Vision is something a brain generates on the basis of information input and neural architecture.

Some species see further into the infra-red or ultraviolet than we do, for instance.

Vision is not generated by an independent mind. It is a brain function.

 

[untermensche]

Vision is another word for seeing, seeing is an experience. There is no division or separation between seeing, vision or the experience/phenomena of Vision.

Vision is something a brain generates on the basis of information input and neural architecture.

Some species see further into the infra-red or ultraviolet than we do, for instance.

Vision is not generated by an independent mind. It is a brain function.

The mind experiences all things.

The brain experiences nothing.

The brain is reflexive tissues.

The mind is contemplative and purposeful. The mind is a governor and limiter of the brains uncontrolled reflexive nature.

How a mind could think it is merely a brain takes a lot of brain washing.

 

[DBT]

Vision is another word for seeing, seeing is an experience. There is no division or separation between seeing, vision or the experience/phenomena of Vision.

Vision is something a brain generates on the basis of information input and neural architecture.

Some species see further into the infra-red or ultraviolet than we do, for instance.

Vision is not generated by an independent mind. It is a brain function.

The mind experiences all things.

The brain experiences nothing.

The brain is reflexive tissues.

The mind is contemplative and purposeful. The mind is a governor and limiter of the brains uncontrolled reflexive nature.

How a mind could think it is merely a brain takes a lot of brain washing.

The Mantra again. Mind, according to all evidence, is the function and work of a brain. Mind has no independence from the brain that is forming and generating conscious activity, the experience of sight, sound, smell, thoughts, feelings, etc, etc....mind is whatever a brain is doing.

 

[untermensche]

Vision is another word for seeing, seeing is an experience. There is no division or separation between seeing, vision or the experience/phenomena of Vision.

Vision is something a brain generates on the basis of information input and neural architecture.

Some species see further into the infra-red or ultraviolet than we do, for instance.

Vision is not generated by an independent mind. It is a brain function.

The mind experiences all things.

The brain experiences nothing.

The brain is reflexive tissues.

The mind is contemplative and purposeful. The mind is a governor and limiter of the brains uncontrolled reflexive nature.

How a mind could think it is merely a brain takes a lot of brain washing.

The Mantra again. Mind, according to all evidence, is the function and work of a brain. Mind has no independence from the brain that is forming and generating conscious activity, the experience of sight, sound, smell, thoughts, feelings, etc, etc....mind is whatever a brain is doing.

That is not an answer to anything.

It is just hand waving and not responding.

You are only good at avoiding ideas and have no ability to address any.