COLOUR

[untermensche]

The nervous system doesn't learn. That's something beings do. Learn to read.

So what do you make of how melanopsin works?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsically_photosensitive_retinal_ganglion_cell

[h=3]Melanopsin[edit][/h]Unlike other photoreceptor pigments, melanopsin has the ability to act as both the excitable photopigment and as a photoisomerase. Instead of requiring additional cells to revert between the two isoforms, from all-trans-retinal back into 11-cis-retinal before it can undergo another phototransduction, like the photoreceptor cones, which rely on Müller cells and retinal pigment epithelium cells for this conversion, melanopsin is able to isomerize all-trans-retinal into 11-cis-retinal when stimulated with light without help from additional cells.^[10] The two isoforms of melanopsin differ in their spectral sensitivity, for the 11-cis-retinal isoform is more responsive to shorter wavelengths of light, while the all-trans isoform is more responsive to longer wavelengths of light.^[12]

Intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells (ipRGCs), also called photosensitive retinal ganglion cells (pRGC), or melanopsin-containing retinal ganglion cells (mRGCs), are a type of neuron in the retina of the mammalian eye.

Compared to the rods and cones, the ipRGCs respond more sluggishly and signal the presence of light over the long term.[4] They represent a very small subset (~1%) of the retinal ganglion cells.[5] Their functional roles are non-image-forming and fundamentally different from those of pattern vision; they provide a stable representation of ambient light intensity. They have at least three primary functions:

They play a major role in synchronizing circadian rhythms to the 24-hour light/dark cycle, providing primarily length-of-day and length-of-night information. They send light information via the retinohypothalamic tract (RHT) directly to the circadian pacemaker of the brain, the suprachiasmatic nucleus of the hypothalamus. The physiological properties of these ganglion cells match known properties of the daily light entrainment (synchronization) mechanism regulating circadian rhythms. In addition, ipRGCs could also influence peripheral tissues such as the hair follicle regeneration through SCN-sympathetic nerve circuit.[6]

Photosensitive ganglion cells innervate other brain targets, such as the center of pupillary control, the olivary pretectal nucleus of the midbrain. They contribute to the regulation of pupil size and other behavioral responses to ambient lighting conditions.[7]

They contribute to photic regulation and acute photic suppression of release of the hormone melatonin.[7]

In rats, they play some role in conscious visual perception, including perception of regular gratings, light levels, and spatial information.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsically_photosensitive_retinal_ganglion_cell

Melanopsin has no role in color production by the brain. Try to stay on topic and avoid absurd meaningless tangents.

I am glad you finally understand the difference between minds and the nervous system.

Minds learn. The nervous system reflexively acts and reacts.

You are still claiming that the nervous system somehow (without learning) knows the energy causing a molecule to shift is "red".

Your position is a miracle.

 

[fromderinside]

The news is these are ganglion cells not photoreceptor cells. This fact is important because it provide another link between specific light frequency sensitivity in neurons that are sending and receiving those action potentials from receptors. They work in concert with neurons passing impulses from receptors providing a basis for correlation between light frequency sensitivity in vision system neurons to physical elements underlying color. Magic disappearing as you read.

Jut a little more conditioning and you'll demonstrate the fish learning startle response. Things are good.

I said beings decide based on information generated in the brain via processing of inputs and the being's existing status conditions.

As you know there are a variety of possibilities racket up and in position for execution depending on how those computations pan out complete with compensating measures in line with where the processing started and where the being was more recently. The above is result of and why the studies over the past years testing following Libet have been so enlightening and process setting.

BTW. You need to be a subject in a perceptual measurement study to learn why what observers did in Libet's study are not guessing wile or otherwise. You'll be amazed. I can't expect for you to say you are sorry. But I can expect you will be amazed.

 

[untermensche]

In terms of color there is only one thing any of the energy is doing.

It is all transforming the same molecule.

Isn't it strange that energy that does not transform the retinal molecule also has no color information?

Because information about color is not in any energy.

Your position is a miracle.

 

[fromderinside]

If one wants to distinguish colors all one needs is a model that takes output from receptors with known sensitivity to particular frequencies of light then pair them with outputs from other receptors with opposite known frequency of sensitivity to set a baseline to recover color via negation of opposing outputs. This is the opponent process.

Opponent processes subsystems are known to be present in human visual sensory processes. Scientists have produced a trichromatic opponent process theory that pretty much explains how humans recover color from action potentials.

If additional information is needed then having color sensitive ganglion cells neurons communicating with opponent process neurons only ties a supportive knot on the theory.

No magic. Just information translation from frequency (color) to impulse then a through a known reverse decoding process (opponent process), and Walla, Color information at the point where it can be used as such. Building such polarity trails are known throughout the nervous system.

 

[untermensche]

If one wants to distinguish colors all one needs is a model that takes output from receptors with known sensitivity to particular frequencies of light then pair them with outputs from other receptors with opposite known frequency of sensitivity to set a baseline to recover color via negation of opposing outputs. This is the opponent process.

Opponent processes subsystems are known to be present in human visual sensory processes. Scientists have produced a trichromatic opponent process theory that pretty much explains how humans recover color from action potentials.

If additional information is needed then having color sensitive ganglion cells neurons communicating with opponent process neurons only ties a supportive knot on the theory.

No magic. Just information translation from frequency (color) to impulse then a through a known reverse decoding process (opponent process), and Walla, Color information at the point where it can be used as such. Building such polarity trails are known throughout the nervous system.

You simply won't talk about anything real.

Like a mechanism for your miracle to happen.

All the energy does is cause a molecule to transition to a more stable configuration. There are three types of cones. They simply make it easier for certain parts of the spectrum to cause the transition and harder for the rest of the spectrum to cause the transition.

From this variation and nothing else the brain constructs the experience of color using evolved reflexive mechanisms.

You have no mechanism that enables the nervous system to know why the molecule shifted or anything about what caused the molecule to shift.

Your position is a miracle.

The fact that the only energy that is associated with color is also the energy that causes a transition of cis retinal is something you don't comprehend.

Color has nothing to do with the wavelength or frequency of energy.

It is all about the transition of cis retinal and what the evolved nervous system has created from that trigger within the cell.

 

[DBT]

What you claim goes contrary to all evidence. Colour vision would convey no benefits if it was random. Wiring a circuit board might be kinda problematic if one technician saw a red wire as yellow while another saw green wire as red.....

Yes.

The leg would convey no benefits if it arose randomly. The gods must have designed it long ago.

You are totally ignorant of evolutionary theory and the mechanics of evolution.

In terms of evolution there is no possibly way for an evolving organism to know it is supposed to create the experience of "blue" when energy causes a molecule to change from a cis configuration to a trans (you have no clue what that means).

You are a rank amateur that understands little.

You confuse correlation with a stimulus with actual cause by that stimulus.

The experience of "green" is correlated with light energy but there is no information about green in the energy.

All the information about green is in evolved brains.

The blue light is correlated with my hand hitting a switch but my hand has no information about blue.

The Rank Amateur is you.

Your response is nothing more than hand waving. The information I provided comes from scientific source material.....which you are on record as rejecting in favour of your own feelings - that mind acts independently of the brain....a claim that you make no attempt to explain or support with evidence.

Amateurish is putting it kindly.

Again, the basics:

''In humans, light wavelength is associated with perception of color (figure above). Within the visible spectrum, our experience of red is associated with longer wavelengths, greens are intermediate, and blues and violets are shorter in wavelength.''

 

[fromderinside]

So edge definition is an evolved reflexive mechanism. Really? So ganglion cells in the receiving organ are about the work of making sense out of edges prior to the upstream neural substrate resolving what is an edge?

You apparently missed

Interim Conclusions

The receptive field structure of L vs. M midget RGCs is consistent with a role in edge detection. Their ability to respond to equiluminant edges defined only by wavelength differences makes visible forms that would be otherwise invisible. Spectral opponency can also increase the signal-to-noise ratio for edges defined by both intensity and wavelength. The idea that spectral opponency in L vs. M midget RGCs could enhance edge detection rather than contribute to color perception raises an important point. A response to wavelength changes does not imply a causal role in hue perception. As introduced above, hue perception requires detectors that will not respond to black-white edges.

In conclusion, while it may be arguable whether or not midget L vs. M RGCs are ideal achromatic encoders, it is indisputable that they are far from ideal for red-green hue encoding. This leaves two major unanswered questions: what is the physiological basis for hue perception and what role do midget RGCs play? Several different theories involving both the spectral and spatial aspects of midget RGC receptive fields have been proposed as tentative answers to this question. We next review the two main classes of explanation: multiplexing and parallel processing.

in Reconciling Color Vision Models With Midget Ganglion Cell Receptive Fields https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2019.00865/full

and

How feature integration theory integrated cognitive psychology, neurophysiology, and psychophysics https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13414-019-01803-7#Bib1

(FIT) is at heart a very simple but elegant theory, which undoubtedly explains its influence and longevity (see Fig. 1). A key notion is that the perceptual process is hierarchical and that the visual scene is initially encoded on a finite number of feature dimensions. They are detected automatically and in parallel across the visual field. The input is first represented on a master map of locations that specifies where things are but not what they are (see Treisman & Souther, 1985; Treisman & Gormican, 1988). In particular it does not indicate which features occupy which locations. This information is then integrated into the “correct compounds” (Treisman, 1977) by focal attention, which “glues” them together (to use a phrase from Treisman and Gelade, 1980). Such integrated entities came to be called object-files (Treisman, Kahneman & Burkell, 1983). Only features that are registered in the same location, within the same attentional focus, can then be encoded as belonging to the same object. Importantly the capacity of this attention integration mechanism is limited.

Your lack of depth or scope of how processing takes place is at the base of your magic act.

Really. You should chew on the above articles a bit before you go all hand wavy on the limits of neural processing. You are missing basics like how nervous organization and channel forming preserves input loci, how cells compensate for the limitations of using action potentials to transmit information within the nervous system, etc.

Philosophy programs don't provide the tools for understanding how things work. It takes scientist who transfer current knowledge to those who insist on remaining rational the tools necessary for improving about what they speculate.

 

[untermensche]

What you claim goes contrary to all evidence. Colour vision would convey no benefits if it was random. Wiring a circuit board might be kinda problematic if one technician saw a red wire as yellow while another saw green wire as red.....

Yes.

The leg would convey no benefits if it arose randomly. The gods must have designed it long ago.

You are totally ignorant of evolutionary theory and the mechanics of evolution.

In terms of evolution there is no possibly way for an evolving organism to know it is supposed to create the experience of "blue" when energy causes a molecule to change from a cis configuration to a trans (you have no clue what that means).

You are a rank amateur that understands little.

You confuse correlation with a stimulus with actual cause by that stimulus.

The experience of "green" is correlated with light energy but there is no information about green in the energy.

All the information about green is in evolved brains.

The blue light is correlated with my hand hitting a switch but my hand has no information about blue.

The Rank Amateur is you.

Your response is nothing more than hand waving. The information I provided comes from scientific source material.....which you are on record as rejecting in favour of your own feelings - that mind acts independently of the brain....a claim that you make no attempt to explain or support with evidence.

Amateurish is putting it kindly.

Again, the basics:

''In humans, light wavelength is associated with perception of color (figure above). Within the visible spectrum, our experience of red is associated with longer wavelengths, greens are intermediate, and blues and violets are shorter in wavelength.''

You're too blind to even see your misunderstanding.

You really are a total waste of my time because you seem both incapable of actually understanding what I'm saying and incapable of learning from it.

The only part of the spectrum that relates to color is that tiny part of the spectrum that transforms a retinal molecule from cis to trans.

If you actually understood what that meant you would begin to understand.

Every stupid thing you post is information I fully understand.

What is not understood is what I'm saying, by you.

Tell me specifically what the energy is doing. Jump up out of your hole of ignorance and try to understand that.

When you tell me what the energy is doing I will engage. I am tired of wasting my time.

 

[untermensche]

So edge definition is an evolved reflexive mechanism. Really?...

Of course.

Every single aspect of the visual reflex is an evolved mechanism.

Without a mechanism there is nothing but miracles.

I didn't think one had to have a pharmacy education to understand. But without a mechanism no drug does anything. Without a mechanism nothing does anything.

Understanding the visual reflex can only occur through an understanding of real mechanisms.

Your position is a miracle.

Color is derived from information about the movement of nitrogen atoms.

It is not derived from information within the thing that causes the nitrogen to move.

Your lack of depth or scope of how processing takes place is at the base of your magic act.

I understand fully what the light is doing. I fully understand the initial mechanism, the switch.

I have said there is a lot of downstream processing of the information about the movement of nitrogen atoms.

This has nothing to do with downstream processing which is only understood very superficially.

I have a real mechanism.

You have hand waving, miracles and a desire to talk about anything besides the initial mechanism.

You don't care what the energy is actually doing.

Very odd behavior. Very unscientific.

 

[fromderinside]

Wat makes edge detection a reflex? FYI neurons pass information and repress passing information along collateral channels.. Neurons produce two outputs across their dendrites. One is a confirming signal of receptor transmitted information from a particular receptor to other neurons in direct ascending pathway and another inhibiting sent to adjacent neurons along the pathway.

The small ganglion cells in the visual periphery in the retina, receptor organ, also use light reactivity to produce negative output to adjacent ascending cells. This is not a reflex, but a neurophysiological conditioning paradigm designed to limit the extent to which information of a particular event is passed upward or downward in the NS, a pathway specific process. This is the mechanism of lateral inhibition phenomenon first discovered by Helmholtz in the the 1860s.

Things are much more nuanced than you present them sir. Consequently your interpretation of results using your dualist 'plaining is a false explanation of what goes on in the brain.

 

[DBT]

The Rank Amateur is you.

Your response is nothing more than hand waving. The information I provided comes from scientific source material.....which you are on record as rejecting in favour of your own feelings - that mind acts independently of the brain....a claim that you make no attempt to explain or support with evidence.

Amateurish is putting it kindly.

Again, the basics:

''In humans, light wavelength is associated with perception of color (figure above). Within the visible spectrum, our experience of red is associated with longer wavelengths, greens are intermediate, and blues and violets are shorter in wavelength.''

You're too blind to even see your misunderstanding.

You really are a total waste of my time because you seem both incapable of actually understanding what I'm saying and incapable of learning from it.

The only part of the spectrum that relates to color is that tiny part of the spectrum that transforms a retinal molecule from cis to trans.

If you actually understood what that meant you would begin to understand.

Every stupid thing you post is information I fully understand.

What is not understood is what I'm saying, by you.

Tell me specifically what the energy is doing. Jump up out of your hole of ignorance and try to understand that.

When you tell me what the energy is doing I will engage. I am tired of wasting my time.

The ignorance is yours...you say that ''every stupid thing you post is information I fully understand'' - in which case there is no dispute.

Why you may ask? Well, because if you did fully understand the science, what I have posted, there would be no dispute.

The information I have posted is based on science. What I say is based on science.

So in effect it is you who rejects the science. It is you who calls the science stupid. It is you who proclaims your own ideas to be superior to science.


And when are you going to explain your autonomy of mind idea? I'd say never. Never, because deep down you know how stupid it is to claim that mind achieves independence from the brain, but like a fundamentalist with their faith, cling to it anyway.

 

[untermensche]

The ignorance is yours...you say that ''every stupid thing you post is information I fully understand'' - in which case there is no dispute.

Why you may ask? Well, because if you did fully understand the science, what I have posted, there would be no dispute.

The information I have posted is based on science. What I say is based on science.

So in effect it is you who rejects the science. It is you who calls the science stupid. It is you who proclaims your own ideas to be superior to science.


And when are you going to explain your autonomy of mind idea? I'd say never. Never, because deep down you know how stupid it is to claim that mind achieves independence from the brain, but like a fundamentalist with their faith, cling to it anyway.

The basic information you have posted doesn't address my points in any way.

Since you don't understand that you clearly don't understand my points.

There is a general misunderstanding of color, even with so-called scientists.

Color is something evolved brains construct when nitrogen atoms move.

It is not a property of light or of things in the world.

Light energy is simply the thing that causes the nitrogen atoms to move, indirectly. Energy is not passing information about color to the nervous system. It has no information about color anywhere in it.

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

https://physics.info/color/

In terms of autonomy you have never once even addressed the subject.

It is not something you can speak about. It is just something you believe like a Christian believes in Jesus.

Here is somebody that actually understands the science:

 

[fromderinside]

Rumsfeld here. We don't know what we don't know about the brain.

 

[DBT]

The basic information you have posted doesn't address my points in any way.

Since you don't understand that you clearly don't understand my points.

You don't have any points.

Your claims are basically incoherent.

Colour vision is not arbitrary for all the reasons that have been given and described by science.

You ignore the science and assert your own ideas.

 

[untermensche]

The basic information you have posted doesn't address my points in any way.

Since you don't understand that you clearly don't understand my points.

You don't have any points.

Your claims are basically incoherent.

Colour vision is not arbitrary for all the reasons that have been given and described by science.

You ignore the science and assert your own ideas.

You admit you don't even understand what I'm saying.

Tell me specifically what the energy is doing.

I know exactly what it is doing and know it isn't passing any information about itself to the nervous system.

This is science as opposed to your empty hand waving:

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

https://physics.info/color/

 

[fromderinside]

Your reference uses mind without defining what it is. Ergo one demands that intrinsic nature be denied else there is no need for mind. However since physicists deal with material aspects of nature,. Instead your reference couches their argument in obvious subjective aspects of nature to which your reference subscribes. It is obvious that although anything that can be represented by temperature (energy) it must be denied. It can't be denied because it can be directly measured.

So hand wave and introduce mind as physics. Doesn't work. I've pointed this out many times before. Yet you keep going back to the same old meaningless poisoned watering hole.

 

[untermensche]

Your reference uses mind without defining what it is. Ergo one demands that intrinsic nature be denied else there is no need for mind. However since physicists deal with material aspects of nature,. Instead your reference couches their argument in obvious subjective aspects of nature to which your reference subscribes. It is obvious that although anything that can be represented by temperature (energy) it must be denied. It can't be denied because it can be directly measured.

So hand wave and introduce mind as physics. Doesn't work. I've pointed this out many times before. Yet you keep going back to the same old meaningless poisoned watering hole.

Your claims you are mindless yet have opinions with value are merely laughable.

Color is absolute proof of minds that experience.

It cannot possibly be anything else.

 

[fromderinside]

All physical all objective all the time.

Color categories and physical specifications of color are associated with objects through their spectral power distribution (wavelength distribution) of light that is reflected or emitted from them. This wavelength distribution is governed by the object's physical properties such as light absorption, emission spectrum, illumination spectrum, etc.

Not a mindful word in the entire text.

QED!!!

That man has figured this out? Remarkable but entirely materialistically traceable.

 

[untermensche]

All physical all objective all the time.

Color categories and physical specifications of color are associated with objects through their spectral power distribution (wavelength distribution) of light that is reflected or emitted from them. This wavelength distribution is governed by the object's physical properties such as light absorption, emission spectrum, illumination spectrum, etc.

Not a mindful word in the entire text.

QED!!!

And it doesn't explain a thing about color since color is ONLY something that minds experience.

Talking about energy is not in any way talking about color.

It is talking about the stimulus that causes the brain to create color.

Why does only energy that converts cis retinal to trans retinal have color?

Why isn't it all colorful?

 

[fromderinside]

All energy if humans process it is the result of some molecular cis - trans operation in one way or another. That is how the brain processes the energy up whatever channel it passes up. The trick is to understand how those action potential convey information the brain processes to as to source and structure of what is outside the brain.

It's not the action of a magical mind that resolves the information passed into the nervous system. It is in the the structure and function of the the nervous system through which the information passes that who, what, where, when, why and how becomes percept.

Consciousness are the echoes of sub-vocal, sub-visual, sub-cutaneous, and sub-olfactory traces of what the brain processes.