• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

COLOUR

All energy if humans process it is the result of some molecular cis - trans operation in one way or another.

You finally know this because I have explained it to you about 50 times.

That is how the brain processes the energy up whatever channel it passes up.

The experience of color is the end result of the processing.

The brain reflexively turns information about the movement of nitrogen atoms into the experience of color.

It does not process the light. It processes information about the movement of nitrogen. The light is merely the thing that moves the nitrogen.

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

Whatever.

Color is absolute proof of both minds and minds that experience.
 
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/

I'm saying that you don't understand the science. That you make claims that are not supported by science, consequently you reject science.

You reject science in favour of dualism. You claim that mind/consciousness can act independently of the brain.

That is the absurdity I am disputing.

That is what I have repeatedly asked you to explain and justify, but all I get is handwaving and displays of angst and anger.

Several posters have patiently tried to point out your errors on colour perception. I have provided material from reliable sources. You reject it all. I can't see you considering the evidence or changing mind.

It's not that we are all wrong, or that we don't understand, but that you refuse to contemplate your own errors and fallacies.
 
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/

I'm saying that you don't understand the science. That you make claims that are not supported by science, consequently you reject science.

You reject science in favour of dualism. You claim that mind/consciousness can act independently of the brain.

That is the absurdity I am disputing.

That is what I have repeatedly asked you to explain and justify, but all I get is handwaving and displays of angst and anger.

Several posters have patiently tried to point out your errors on colour perception. I have provided material from reliable sources. You reject it all. I can't see you considering the evidence or changing mind.

It's not that we are all wrong, or that we don't understand, but that you refuse to contemplate your own errors and fallacies.

You are too uneducated to talk to.

Dualism is not a thing. It hasn't been a thing since the development of quantum physics.

We have no idea what matter is. We only understand how it behaves. It is reduced to equations and poetry.
 
Color is absolute proof of both minds and minds that experience.
Not so fast me pretty. Yes action potentials are the result of pigment induced molecular transformations. But there are quite a few different spectral windows where these transformations operate. Each of these different transformations can be identified by the particular receptor from which they originate. Here is a recent article summarizing the spectral nature at which individual photoreceptive pigment produces activity in receptor cells.

Advances in understanding the molecular basis of the first steps in color vision https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4651776/

Below are critical elements of this analysis including multiple frequencies producing action potentials and other variations that produce differences in character of action potential transmission.

Table 1

A summary of published human opsin absorption maxima (λmax) from 1964 to 2011. Data here show that the absorption maxima are not single values but instead represent an absorption range. This absorption range results from different experimental methods and polymorphisms within the opsins. For simplicity, we have used values published previously (Neitz and Neitz, 2011).

[TABLE="class: rendered small default_table"]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]Human Rhodopsin:[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]λmax[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]496 nm (Dartnall et al., 1983), 497 nm (Bowmaker and Dartnall, 1980), 505 nm (Brown and Wald, 1964), 498 nm (Nathans, 1990).[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]Human SWS1:[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]λmax[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]426 nm (Merbs and Nathans, 1992), 424 nm (Oprian et al., 1991), 419 nm (Dartnall et al., 1983), 410 nm (Asenjo et al., 1994), 420 nm (Bowmaker and Dartnall, 1980), 450 nm (Brown and Wald, 1964), 420 nm (Neitz and Neitz, 2011).[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]Human M/LWS:[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]λmax[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]530 nm (Merbs and Nathans, 1992), 530 nm (Oprian et al., 1991), 530 nm (Dartnall et al., 1983), 532 nm (Asenjo et al., 1994), 533 nm (Bowmaker and Dartnall, 1980), 525 nm (Brown and Wald, 1964), 530 nm (Neitz and Neitz, 2011).[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]Human L/LWS:[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]λmax[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]552 nm (Merbs and Nathans, 1992), 560 nm (Oprian et al., 1991), 558 nm (Dartnall et al., 1983), 563 nm (Asenjo et al., 1994), 562 nm (Bowmaker and Dartnall, 1980), 555 nm (Brown and Wald, 1964), 557.5 nm (Neitz and Neitz, 2011).[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]Human melanopsin[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]λmax[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]479 nm (Bailes and Lucas, 2013)[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Table 2

Conversion of specific absorption maxima (λmax) into corresponding energy units (Neitz and Neitz, 2011).

[TABLE="class: rendered small default_table"]
[TR]
[TH="bgcolor: inherit, align: left"][/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: inherit, align: left"]Wavelength (λmax)[/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: inherit, colspan: 6, align: left"]Energy (E)a[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="bgcolor: inherit, align: left"][/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: inherit, align: center"]
[/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: inherit, colspan: 6, align: center"]
[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="bgcolor: inherit, align: left"][/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: inherit, align: left"][nm][/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: inherit, align: left"][kJ/mol][/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: inherit, align: left"][kcal/mol][/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: inherit, align: left"][10−19 J][/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: inherit, align: right"][10−20 cal][/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: inherit, align: left"][eV][/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: inherit, align: left"][cm−1][/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]Rhodopsin[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]498 nm[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]240.21[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]57.41[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]3.98[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]9.53[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]2.49[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]20,080.32[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]SWS1[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]420 nm[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]284.83[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]68.07[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]4.73[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]11.30[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]2.95[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]23,809.51[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]M/LWS[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]530 nm[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]225.71[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]53.95[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]3.75[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]8.95[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]2.34[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]18,867.88[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]L/LWS[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]557.5 nm[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]214.58[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]51.29[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]3.56[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]8.51[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]2.22[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]17,937.48[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]Melanopsin[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]479 nm[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]249.74[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]59.69[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]4.15[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]9.91[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]2.58[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]20,876.88[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

aCalculated from: E = h·cmax; c = 299792458 m/s; h = 6:62606957(29)·10−34Js.


A revised model (Fig. 2) of the opponent color theory by De Valois and De Valois is provided by (Schmidt et al., 2014a). It states that cone opponent signals are processed through midget ganglion cells, where signals from cones are combined with those from horizontal cells. Thereby the ON/OFF state of bipolar cells and the SWS1 cone input play a major role in the transmission of the hue sensations yellow, blue, green and red. Based on this model, four hue mechanisms are proposed: yellow, L − (S + M); blue, (S + M) − L; green, M − (S + L); and red, (S + L) − M (Fig. 2) (Schmidt et al., 2014a). Melanopsin signaling can contribute to the contrast sensitivity in vision (Schmidt et al., 2014b). A model based on principal component analysis suggests how rod photoreceptor and ganglion cells containing melanopsin contributions could be achieved. In this principal component analysis, the most important chromatic contribution is also the blue–yellow input (Barrionuevo and Cao, 2014). How these signals from cone, rod photoreceptor cells and melanopsin-containing ganglion cells are processed and if the current models of color perception need to be expanded remain topics of ongoing research.

All of which when taken together with receptor tagging processing subsequent to color receptive pigment response provides substantial basis for neuronal process color definition.

Obviously this very dense article covers much much more. So a good read is encouraged.
 
Can a person know what red is without experiencing it?

Do you have some information that would help a blind man know what red is?

Would telling him about cellular proteins or energy help?

There is "color theory".

Based entirely on the experience of color.

Humans have an understanding of the correlations between specific energy and the experiences of color.

This was derived by asking people what they are experiencing.

There is no information about color in energy.

Energetics of cis–trans isomerization of 11-cis-retinal accounts for color perception in the narrow region of the electromagnetic spectrum and how human eyes can absorb light in the near infrared (IR) range.

Your own source is on my side.

Color is accounted for by the transformation of retinal molecules, not by what causes it.
 
There is "color theory".

Based entirely on the experience of color.

No. No. No. There is material color theory based on the ability of living things to consistently respond to, reflect, absorb, differences in frequency of electromagnetic radiation in the visible light range.

Bees, monkeys, many fishes, shrimp, respond to light in this designated range of electromagnetic radiation frequencies. Most Plants absorb and reflect various visible light frequencies falling upon them. Most material in the universe has this same passive capacity based on their molecular structures.

So color whether named or not exists as a usable material property photonics of in all of the universe.

As for information if it is used it is information. Spectral light energy is used.

Your wrong headed notion that it takes a mind, even brain, to establish the validity of color is just flat wrong.

Utility is the measure of existence of material things. Visible light photonics is the subfield of electromagnetic radiation material science.
 
There is "color theory".

Based entirely on the experience of color.

No. No. No. There is material color theory based on the ability of living things to consistently respond to, reflect, absorb, differences in frequency of electromagnetic radiation in the visible light range.

The experience of color is derived from information about the isomerization of cis retinal. The isomerization occurs based on the particle nature of light, not the wave nature.

It has nothing to do with frequencies or absorption properties.

It is correlated to so-called "light energy". But the energy does not turn on any lights.

The movement of nitrogen atoms turns on the lights.

Color theory is derived totally from experience.

It existed before we knew what light was.

Newton created a color wheel in 1704 based entirely on his experience of color observing refracted light.

Newton knew nothing about the frequencies of light associated with his experiences.

Any child could create a color wheel the same way Newton did.

They do not need to know anything about frequencies or absorption properties or what light is. They just have to be able to experience color.

And if you can't experience color you have no way to understand what it is.
 
Newton was probably the greatest genius about whom we know. It was refracted light for god's sake. Thank heaven for that. He left us a lot to work out for or defenseless little selves. Uh, yes the do need to know about the relation between light frequency and it striking an edge. In fact we see this sort of thing all the time when we go to the Ocean. Frequency determines the direction of refraction of water waves from a bounding obstacle. Of course he was confronted need to know about the dual frequency nature of light as well as its corpuscular nature which were hot topics around his time.

From https://global.canon/en/technology/s_labo/light/001/11.html
Known for his Law of Universal Gravitation, English physicist Sir Isaac Newton (1643 to 1727) realized that light had frequency-like properties when he used a prism to split sunlight into its component colors. Nevertheless, he thought that light was a particle because the periphery of the shadows it created was extremely sharp and clear.

So your little "no way or the highway" - sorry, experience - thing is bunk.

BTW anyone who has taken first year college physics as early as 1960, - my experience, it was known while my dad was still in school in the thirties in Montana - knows about the grid studies demonstrating the dual nature of light propagation.

Cherry picking just isn't working for you is it.
 
I'm saying that you don't understand the science. That you make claims that are not supported by science, consequently you reject science.

You reject science in favour of dualism. You claim that mind/consciousness can act independently of the brain.

That is the absurdity I am disputing.

That is what I have repeatedly asked you to explain and justify, but all I get is handwaving and displays of angst and anger.

Several posters have patiently tried to point out your errors on colour perception. I have provided material from reliable sources. You reject it all. I can't see you considering the evidence or changing mind.

It's not that we are all wrong, or that we don't understand, but that you refuse to contemplate your own errors and fallacies.

You are too uneducated to talk to.

Dualism is not a thing. It hasn't been a thing since the development of quantum physics.

We have no idea what matter is. We only understand how it behaves. It is reduced to equations and poetry.

You say that to everyone who points out your fallacies, you resort insults and ad homs whenever your own inability to understand the subject matter is exposed.

I don't expect you to explain your autonomy of mind claim because it's obvious that you can't. You can't because the idea is essentially absurd.

Which is why your blow your smokescreen whenever the truth is exposed.

Rejecting science, you choose not to educate yourself.
 
I'm saying that you don't understand the science. That you make claims that are not supported by science, consequently you reject science.

You reject science in favour of dualism. You claim that mind/consciousness can act independently of the brain.

That is the absurdity I am disputing.

That is what I have repeatedly asked you to explain and justify, but all I get is handwaving and displays of angst and anger.

Several posters have patiently tried to point out your errors on colour perception. I have provided material from reliable sources. You reject it all. I can't see you considering the evidence or changing mind.

It's not that we are all wrong, or that we don't understand, but that you refuse to contemplate your own errors and fallacies.

You are too uneducated to talk to.

Dualism is not a thing. It hasn't been a thing since the development of quantum physics.

We have no idea what matter is. We only understand how it behaves. It is reduced to equations and poetry.

You say that to everyone who points out your fallacies, you resort insults and ad homs whenever your own inability to understand the subject matter is exposed.

I don't expect you to explain your autonomy of mind claim because it's obvious that you can't. You can't because the idea is essentially absurd.

Which is why your blow your smokescreen whenever the truth is exposed.

Rejecting science, you choose not to educate yourself.

Dualism is not a thing until you can tell me exactly what matter is.

We have no idea what matter is. We only know how it behaves to a limited degree.

Your ignorance is 19th century blathering.

When I read the word "dualism" I chuckle at the naivete.

We are in the quantum age and no dualism can be shown to exist because what things are is reduced to equations that only define behavior.

You have to know what something is to say there is a duality. Only knowing how it behaves won't help. Just because something, like a mind, behaves differently does not mean there is a duality.

The electron is defined using poetry as existing in a "cloud". The electron is reduced to complicated equations that define it's behavior. That is all that is know about it.

Try to move forward to the 21st century. I can read about 19th century misunderstandings like "dualism". You waste my time claiming they mean anything.
 
Newton was probably the greatest genius about whom we know.

He didn't know what light was or that it had a wave/particle duality. All he knew about was his experience of color. He certainly knew nothing about the transformation of cis retinal in cone cells.

It was refracted light for god's sake.

What is that supposed to mean? Yes, it was something a child could experience.

Thank heaven for that.

What are you thanking your gods for?

He left us a lot to work out for or defenseless little selves.

No shit, because all he knew for certain about color was his experience of it.

Uh, yes the do need to know about the relation between light frequency and it striking an edge.

Not to construct a color wheel. All you need is the ability to experience color to create one.

In fact we see this sort of thing all the time when we go to the Ocean. Frequency determines the direction of refraction of water waves from a bounding obstacle.

Refraction of light happens, yes.

Of course he was confronted need to know about the dual frequency nature of light as well as its corpuscular nature which were hot topics around his time.

There were theories. But it was not known what light was. And nobody understood that light was both a wave and a particle. That wasn't known for certain until Einstein.

Newton had no real understanding of light when he constructed his color wheel. He thought light was particles (corpuscular theory).

His color wheel was constructed ENTIRELY from his experience of color, just as any child that can experience color can construct one.

[FONT=&]Known for his Law of Universal Gravitation, English physicist Sir Isaac Newton (1643 to 1727) realized that light had frequency-like properties when he used a prism to split sunlight into its component colors. Nevertheless, he thought that light was a particle because the periphery of the shadows it created was extremely sharp and clear.[/FONT]

Newton knew nothing about any frequency-like properties of light. That is simply some modern human putting what we now know about refraction into Newton's mind.

Newton thought light was particles. Moving particles don't have a frequency. Waves have frequencies. It wasn't until 1801 that science understood light had a wavelike property with Young's double slit experiment.

At the time Young's conclusions were not accepted because they conflicted with Newton's corpuscular theory.

Color theory and color wheels are based entirely on the experience of color and are not based on any property of energy. Modern humans do understand the correlation between specific frequencies and specific subjective reports of color however.
 
Isaac Newton (4 January 1643 – 31 March 1727) was considered an insightful and erudite theologian by his contemporaries. He wrote many works that would now be classified as occult studies, and he wrote religious tracts that dealt with the literal interpretation of the Bible.

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

It was Newton's religious devotion and belief in numerology that led him to divide the blue part of the spectrum into blue and indigo.

He thought the number 7 had magical mystical properties so he divided the continual spectrum into 7 distinct entities.

Many today share his theology and believe there are only 7 distinct colors in the continual spectrum.

spectrum.jpg

Newton's color wheel was not a reflection of reality or of an understanding of light.

It was an abstraction of his experience of color and a reflection of his superstition.

Disque_newton.jpg
 
Hmmmm. So Newton knew nothing about waves, - obviously, the one who gathered examples from observing nature, he never went down to the river Cam or threw the occasional rock in to its calm eddies cut off from gravitationally driven flow by barriers. But he did know enough to think light was corpuscular. He was in conversations with contemporaries who were considering wave and frequency to explain such as rainbows.

Bolt the doors mate. Something might get out jeopardizing your absolute certainty about experience and mind.

Many believe Trump can do no wrong. Is that your position? Believe?

Woo Woo. Cachoo
 
Hmmmm. So Newton knew nothing about waves, - obviously, the one who gathered examples from observing nature, he never went down to the river Cam or threw the occasional rock in to its calm eddies cut off from gravitationally driven flow by barriers. But he did know enough to think light was corpuscular. He was in conversations with contemporaries who were considering wave and frequency to explain such as rainbows.

Bolt the doors mate. Something might get out jeopardizing your absolute certainty about experience and mind.

Many believe Trump can do no wrong. Is that your position? Believe?

Woo Woo. Cachoo

So you are just going to play dumb?

Newton did not know light was a wave or anything about the frequency of light.

If you think light is moving particles you don't think it has a frequency.

Only waves have frequencies.

Are you done with your stupidity?
 
Newton recognized his corpuscular theory was at odds with refraction results, it's in his writings. Besides Newton was not wrong about light being corpuscular, and his observations on refraction which verified wave properties of light were verified via experiment. Lights acts as if corpuscle (photon) and wave, two verified realizations.

You can't come in to today's world declaring that because Newton believed one thing that that belief is valid now. It isn't.
 
You say that to everyone who points out your fallacies, you resort insults and ad homs whenever your own inability to understand the subject matter is exposed.

I don't expect you to explain your autonomy of mind claim because it's obvious that you can't. You can't because the idea is essentially absurd.

Which is why your blow your smokescreen whenever the truth is exposed.

Rejecting science, you choose not to educate yourself.

Dualism is not a thing until you can tell me exactly what matter is.

We have no idea what matter is. We only know how it behaves to a limited degree.

Your ignorance is 19th century blathering.

When I read the word "dualism" I chuckle at the naivete.

We are in the quantum age and no dualism can be shown to exist because what things are is reduced to equations that only define behavior.

You have to know what something is to say there is a duality. Only knowing how it behaves won't help. Just because something, like a mind, behaves differently does not mean there is a duality.

The electron is defined using poetry as existing in a "cloud". The electron is reduced to complicated equations that define it's behavior. That is all that is know about it.

Try to move forward to the 21st century. I can read about 19th century misunderstandings like "dualism". You waste my time claiming they mean anything.

Dualism is claiming that the mind is something independent of the brain. That the mind can act independently of the brain

That is your claim. That is what you have said.

It is not a claim that you have explained, how the mind can be independent from the brain when all the evidence supports brain activity as the agency of conscious mind.

You have ducked the issue again.

Your 'no idea what matter is' is clearly a dodge. A poor one at that. Poor because we are able to study the workings of the brain, its structures and its electrochemical activity, diseases, injuries, flaws, faults and limitations in relation to mind/consciousness.

All of which you dismiss. Wving your hands and accusing others of ignorance while your own is clearly on display.
 
Dualism is claiming that the mind is something independent of the brain.

My position is that the mind is intimately connected to the brain. I have said that many times. You can't understand that like you can't understand so many things. They are two entities that have a correlation. The brain creates the mind and the mind can influence the brain. Clearly seen in things like biofeedback.

The mind knows what an idea is. The brain does not.

So you are done with your "duality" stupidity?
 
Newton recognized his corpuscular theory was at odds with refraction results, it's in his writings. Besides Newton was not wrong about light being corpuscular, and his observations on refraction which verified wave properties of light were verified via experiment. Lights acts as if corpuscle (photon) and wave, two verified realizations.

You can't come in to today's world declaring that because Newton believed one thing that that belief is valid now. It isn't.

Newton had no clue what the frequency of light was. He did not think it was a wave. Only waves have frequencies.

His color wheel was constructed simply by experiencing color. You don't need more than that to construct one.

He abstracted his experience and reduced it to 7 distinct colors based on his superstitions and the numerology in the Bible.

Small minds have been stuck in his abstractions ever since.

Most modern computer monitors can display at least 256 different colors

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ed075p312A

I don't have the slightest clue what you are babbling about.
 
Back
Top Bottom