COLOUR

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Iow, we see colors because the process evolved in order to accurately model—to the best of our abilities—the "colors" that exist independently of our existence.

You attributed my words to fromderinside.

And I suppose we feel pain because the process evolved to accurately model the pain that exists independently.

Ffs, why are you trying to reinvent the wheel? This is freshman level philosophy at best.

What we call “pain” is an alert response to stimulus indicating damage to the body. Do you not understand how a Dixie cup telephone works?

You jam one of your sensory input devices into a coffee table; aka, you stub your toe. The information that you have just jammed your toe into some immovable object gets nearly instantaneously sent throughout your entire body via your nervous system. Certain parts of your brain receive that information, process it and send out its own response signals in search of more information, like “how bad is it,was anything broken, are we in danger” etc.

This in turn activates all of your other sensory input devices to check and see what can be further discovered; eyes check for what the object was and if there is blood or disfigurement; hands check for broken bones; nervous system sends repeat signals emanating from the primary damage site to localize the damage signal; etc.

This in turn triggers a shit ton of associated memories and a fear response and a dozen or so different drugs—-like adrenaline and dopamine—and white blood cells and the like.

Iow, eighty eight trillion bits of information are all processed in a nano-second into, “damage minimal; not lethal; localized to big toe, left foot.”

ALL of that process/information is categorized under the meta category of “pain.” ALL of that process/information is “internal” in the sense that it all occurs on the inside of our skin. Does any of that “internal” process mean you didn’t stub your toe? 99.9999% of the time it does not. .00001% of the time it means you’re on drugs or you have some other sensory processing malfunction.

So let’s jump to something beyond a freshman bong hit; why do you think skin—or any material substrate— is any kind of relevant demarcation point and/or why do you think there actually is something “internal” or “external”? Internal meaning what? External meaning what? External to what?

From a fundamental, “micro” standpoint, we are a glowing fog of atoms made up of something like 97% empty space. But clearly that fact is not the end-all-be-all, because at the macro level, we are not. But it’s all made up of fundamental particles, so are you just randomly assigning spatial relationships? The brain is in a skull. So? Is the skull some sort of impenetrable barrier? It is to a certain extent at the macro level but not at all to the micro level.

You can’t ignore the macro just as you can’t ignore the micro just as you can’t ignore the fact that there are likely dozens if not trillions if not an infinite number of other levels. Yes, a fish at the bottom of the ocean may in fact have such light sensitive eyes/optical processing that it appears to it that the entire bottom of the ocean is flooded with light.

Or, not, and that’s why it evolved bioluminescence to lure other deep sea creatures toward it in the darkness so that it could kill them and eat. Or, some factor of both conditions is the case in that it can see better in darkness than we can, but that still doesn’t change the fact that it exists in an objective condition that it must react and adapt to.

Do you think sonar evolved in sighted animals or did it evolve out of necessity in animals that can’t see? Does that mean sight doesn’t exist?

You must account for ALL elements, not merely discard one in favor of another.

What we refer to as “pain” is the totality of our response to a stimulus that causes damage (or the threat/potential of damage) to our body. The reactions to that stimulus all occur along a complex network of sensory information telephone wires, essentially. That doesn’t change the fact that an objective stimulus activated such a system.

Iow, we reacted to a stimulus. And....? How the pachinko game is set up doesn’t change the fact that a ball drops and hits various pegs on its way down. The ball is “external” to the pachinko game (whatever that means). So what? Why would that mean it doesn’t exist?

 

[ruby sparks]

Sorry koy. My blooper.

I'll redraft my reply to your original post now. I mistakenly thought that you, like Fromderinside, were saying that colours exist in light itself.

 

[ruby sparks]

Why would our eyes respond to “uncoloured stimuli” by developing cones and rods that encode that stimuli .....

Because the light energy contains (or is) useful information about the world. It doesn't itself need to have colours, just as electricity doesn't have to have the property of pain in it, but can cause pain in organisms.

.....with a color spectrum?

The spectrum is differentiated by, for example wavelength, and different cones (and rods) respond differently accordingly. Whether it is also differentiated by colours, or whether the differentiated colours are only in our brains, is the OP topic. At the very least, there seems to be no need for it to be the case. Some support for colours as only brain experiences (and not as part of light itself) is given by the fact that we can experience colours (and I don't mean as memories) without light. None of that is conclusive, obviously.

By comparison, our brains experience different and contrasting sounds, a base drum sounds very different from a soprano voice, but do the air vibrations have the sounds in them? It appears to be superfluous to explanations, as with pain. The sounds seem to be only our brain's conscious response, as with pain.

Including his and your claims regarding the objective nature of light.

What claims do you mean? That light exists? Yes, I'm assuming for the purposes of the discussion that light exists, either as waves, or photons, or some sort of energy, or possibly even as information.

Fify and, once again, the hard problem isn’t an open question, it’s a brute fact.

I'm not doing the hard problem of consciousness, for reasons given.

Why do we have cones that “see” color if you and your youtube video are correct?

Because the light energy contains (or is) useful information about the world. It doesn't itself need to have colours, just as electricity doesn't have to have the property of pain in it, but can cause pain in organisms.

That part comes before the information is sent to the brain, btw, so there is that as well.

I'm not sure what you mean.

Yes, well, again, THAT is the only open question worth addressing. That “experience” is created in the brain is nothing new, but just because it is an internal process does not necessarily negate that it accurately models (or to a certain degree accurately models) an objective, external condition.

Yes, it does that. But the external condition does not appear to need to involve colours, either in the objects or in the light.

Iow, we see colors because the process evolved in order to accurately model—to the best of our abilities—the "colors" that exist independently of our existence.

You can say "colours" if you like, but as with pain, there is no reason to think the colours are actually in the stimuli themselves.

Evolution isn’t random or just POOF now that happens. We can’t just make up shit that we want to be able to do and then presto we can do that now.

No one is saying that. What is being said is that it is the wavelengths/photons/energy/information that is/are the stimuli, and that the colours are only created in the brain. Like pain.

There is a reason why we developed the ability to process color, but more importantly, there is also a reason why those colors are universal and that billions upon billions of case studies all confirm that we process colors the same way.

How about, the light energy contains (or is) useful information about the world. It doesn't itself need to have colours, just as electricity doesn't have to have the property of pain in it, but can cause pain in organisms.

The rule is monkey see, monkey do, not “we just make up anything we want and then that’s a thing we can all magically do uniformly now.”

No one is doing that.

 

[ruby sparks]

What we call “pain” is an alert response to stimulus indicating damage to the body. Do you not understand how a Dixie cup telephone works?

You jam one of your sensory input devices into a coffee table; aka, you stub your toe. The information that you have just jammed your toe into some immovable object gets nearly instantaneously sent throughout your entire body via your nervous system. Certain parts of your brain receive that information, process it and send out its own response signals in search of more information, like “how bad is it,was anything broken, are we in danger” etc.

This in turn activates all of your other sensory input devices to check and see what can be further discovered; eyes check for what the object was and if there is blood or disfigurement; hands check for broken bones; nervous system sends repeat signals emanating from the primary damage site to localize the damage signal; etc.

This in turn triggers a shit ton of associated memories and a fear response and a dozen or so different drugs—-like adrenaline and dopamine—and white blood cells and the like.

Iow, eighty eight trillion bits of information are all processed in a nano-second into, “damage minimal; not lethal; localized to big toe, left foot.”

I agree so far.

ALL of that process/information is categorized under the meta category of “pain.”

I would say it is experienced as pain (when it is consciously experienced I mean, not all noxious stimuli appear to cross that threshold). It may also be categorized.

ALL of that process/information is “internal” in the sense that it all occurs on the inside of our skin. Does any of that “internal” process mean you didn’t stub your toe? 99.9999% of the time it does not. .00001% of the time it means you’re on drugs or you have some other sensory processing malfunction.

Fine.

So let’s jump to something beyond a freshman bong hit; why do you think skin—or any material substrate— is any kind of relevant demarcation point and/or why do you think there actually is something “internal” or “external”? Internal meaning what? External meaning what? External to what?

From a fundamental, “micro” standpoint, we are a glowing fog of atoms made up of something like 97% empty space. But clearly that fact is not the end-all-be-all, because at the macro level, we are not. But it’s all made up of fundamental particles, so are you just randomly assigning spatial relationships? The brain is in a skull. So? Is the skull some sort of impenetrable barrier? It is to a certain extent at the macro level but not at all to the micro level.

You can’t ignore the macro just as you can’t ignore the micro just as you can’t ignore the fact that there are likely dozens if not trillions if not an infinite number of other levels.

I'm not sure what your point is.

Yes, a fish at the bottom of the ocean may in fact have such light sensitive eyes/optical processing that it appears to it that the entire bottom of the ocean is flooded with light.

Or, not, and that’s why it evolved bioluminescence to lure other deep sea creatures toward it in the darkness so that it could kill them and eat. Or, some factor of both conditions is the case in that it can see better in darkness than we can...

I wasn't talking about creatures that can detect light. I was talking about creatures that can, for example, detect electricity. Such creatures exist, apparently.

But as regards what that 'feels like' to them (if it feels like anything) I had to resort to a hypothetical creature that (a bit like us) does have vivid brain experiences to accompany (or result from) the processing of the detected stimuli.

...but that still doesn’t change the fact that it exists in an objective condition that it must react and adapt to.

I'm not saying otherwise.

Do you think sonar evolved in sighted animals or did it evolve out of necessity in animals that can’t see?

Sonar probably developed as a capacity to detect the world. Humans appear to have evolved a different capacity to do that. That said, we also use a form of sonar too. Visually blind humans have to use it a lot more than those with normal vision. There are other modes of detection also, such as touch and smell, and taste.

Does that mean sight doesn’t exist?

I don't understand the question.

You must account for ALL elements, not merely discard one in favor of another.

I don't know what you mean there either.

What we refer to as “pain” is the totality of our response to a stimulus that causes damage (or the threat/potential of damage) to our body. The reactions to that stimulus all occur along a complex network of sensory information telephone wires, essentially.

More or less fine, imo. Though I would not say that pain was the totality of our response. Pain is the conscious part.

That doesn’t change the fact that an objective stimulus activated such a system.

I'm not suggesting otherwise.

Iow, we reacted to a stimulus. And....? How the pachinko game is set up doesn’t change the fact that a ball drops and hits various pegs on its way down. The ball is “external” to the pachinko game (whatever that means). So what? Why would that mean it doesn’t exist?

No one is saying the stimulus does not exist.

 

[fromderinside]

Colour existing independently of organisms experiencing it appears to be as unnecessary for explanations as is pain existing independently of organisms experiencing it.

OK. Light in earth atmosphere at sea level is mixed, composed of many frequencies. Yet frequencies when refracted through a prism are separated by frequency and those frequencies appear partially distinguishable from one another. However those separations make frequencies apparent. Our sensors detect these differences via frequency sensitive receptors.

What appeared to us as white light is now revealed as constituents of light, frequencies, Our appreciation of them are signalled through our frequency tuned sensors as colors, assuring us that color exists independent of any faerie magic. This is in addition to us having evolved frequency dependent sensors, as color encoders.

Obviously color is more than a whim. Rather color is physical requirement for differentiation of one visible thing from another. I don't think you can successfully argue that any species that differentiates colors has mind or will or even awareness of self. Of course you can try.

What I expect from you is minimal. A hand wave.

No I'm not specifying anything as emergent. Clearly our ability to see colored rainbows reflects our inability to appreciate individual frequencies beyond qualitative differences in energy (color). IOW it's energy: not frequency, as an attribute of visible energy else we'd have evolved frequency detecting capabilities rather than color detecting capabilities; not frequency as an attribute of for non-visible thermal energy else we'd have evolved frequency detecting capabilities rather than warmth detecting capabilities.

After all when we can detect frequency we do.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Ruby, you keep referring to "conscious experience." Why? All that means is brain process.

Likewise, what we call "color" is just another word for wavelength. Wavelengths are an intrinsic property of light, yes? What difference does it make how those wavelengths get encoded by the cones in our eyes prior to that information being packaged (along with the other information from our eyes) that gets constantly streamed to our brain for higher order processing?

Iow, wavelengths are an intrinsic property of light. Established. We differentiate those wavelengths by special coding that occurs via cones and rods in our eyeballs. Established.

Open question: is that special encoding an accurate mimicry of the thing itself or something completely random that has no intrinsic quality?

How to answer: inference is the only option.

Evidence to consider: billions of case studies establishes that it is not just a random encoding process, but a very ordered and consistent one, such that, effectively/statistically, every human sees the same colors when encountering the same wavelengths.

Sufficient conclusion: Our eyes accurately reflect an objective condition. The blueberry "out there" is in fact blue and our sensory input devices are recreating that fact not just randomly shifting through differentiation codes without guidance from the thing itself.

If we are wrong? Irrelevant. As with everything in life--and due exclusively to the brute fact of the hard problem--inference is all we can ever achieve.

"Out there" is forever directly inaccessible so it can't ever be ojectively determined whether or not the blueberry is blue or that is our brain projecting a random color code upon it.

But, again, why would our brains all do that and do it consistently across billions of individuals? It is not a random encoding process at all and it is nearly identical from person to person. That strongly argues for it to be reflective of an objective/intrinsic condition.

Monkey see; monkey do.

If you can't answer the "why" then you have nothing new to contribute to the already well known/well worn hard problem of consciousness.

Sorry, but that's the crux, not merely the "well we don't know what that part is" dismissive.

 

[ruby sparks]

Ruby, you keep referring to "conscious experience." Why? All that means is brain process.

Most brain processes don’t involve consciousness, some do (at least if a threshold is crossed) including this one.

Open question: is that special encoding an accurate mimicry of the thing itself or something completely random that has no intrinsic quality?

It depends what you mean by mimicry. I ask you again about pain. Is pain in the stimuli? I doubt it very much indeed. As such, it seems there is a precedent for conscious experience to be only a brain experience and not in the stimuli. Which is pretty much all I’m claiming.

It’s a (pretty) accurate process, obviously.

Random is out of the question, obviously.

Evidence to consider: billions of case studies establishes that it is not just a random encoding process, but a very ordered and consistent one, such that, effectively/statistically, every human sees the same colors when encountering the same wavelengths.

Forget random.

Sufficient conclusion: Our eyes accurately reflect an objective condition.

Pretty much, yes.

The blueberry "out there" is in fact blue and our sensory input devices are recreating that fact not just randomly shifting through differentiation codes without guidance from the thing itself.

Forget about random. I have no idea why you are even mentioning it.

As to whether blue is out there, it appears to be in the objects, but that’s highly questionable. And then there’s the example of pain.

In short, light itself possessing colour is superfluous to explanations.

But, again, why would our brains all do that and do it consistently across billions of individuals? It is not a random encoding process at all and it is nearly identical from person to person.

Random has nothing to do with it and has never been suggested. Quite the opposite.

That strongly argues for it to be reflective of an objective/intrinsic condition.

Yes, and wavelengths (or some equivalent) provide all the objective conditions needed.

If you can't answer the "why" then you have nothing new to contribute to the already well known/well worn hard problem of consciousness.

Sorry, but that's the crux, not merely the "well we don't know what that part is" dismissive.

I’m not doing the hard problem of consciousness for reasons given.

Not every topic about the brain needs to or should get into that. I have read numerous papers on the topic and offhand I can’t think of one that moved into that area instead of staying within certain limits. It’s not necessary here for my limited purposes.

 

[fromderinside]

I ask you again about pain. Is pain in the stimuli? I doubt it very much indeed. As such, it seems there is a precedent for conscious experience to be only a brain experience and not in the stimuli.

Refresher time.

Going to keep it real.

I said pain sense is about reporting information of harmful material conditions at the skin organ. The particular sensations are reports about information of harmful sources interacting with the skin organ. Consequences whether it be tissue damage due to thermal events, destruction or renting of skin barrier, localized pressure pressure, tissue deformation, etc. are being reported. We call the whole experience pain even though what one receives is mechanical data about what is distressing the skin. Pain is not 'ouch'.

By 'stimulus itself' I mean the particular sensation surrounding a particular event reflects the nature of the harm inflicted. As with any other sense the sensation becomes more particular over time and amount of information received.

Le'ts be explicit. The primary sensor is skin. The types of events producing harmful events are pressure (mechanical), tearing (mechanical, heat and cold (radiated and contact energy), and other mechanical trauma we report as painful. We classify all these harmful events as pain inducing events.

There are sensors reporting thermal radiation that work together with sensors reporting damage that report burning and freezing harm and chronic damage we also report as pain. Joint damage is reported reported by continuous firing of position sensors, and so forth.

These are all reported as different sensations unified by continuous firing skin and joint sensors. We report "get away" continuous firing signals before we are aware of tearing, heat, cold, burn and excessive pressure report. The feeling of pain precedes sensation of particular harm which acts very much like sensation from others senses, increasing in detail and precision over duration of sensed event.

It's not that sensed harm isn't physical, it is. It's that what we report as pain is runaway firing of various ear, eye, skin, muscle, and skeletal system sensors whose function is to signal get away from it which we later interpret as associated with specific harm reporting.

Your conscious pain is full bull crap full stop.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Forget about random. I have no idea why you are even mentioning it.

Because if it isn’t random, then it stands to reason that it must be copying some sort of objective condition. Iow, there are currently 7 billion case studies that all use the SAME color coding system. That is strong evidence to support the inference that a blueberry is objectively (intrinsically) blue and the reason we evolved cones and rods is to reflect that objective condition.

As to whether blue is out there, it appears to be in the objects, but that’s highly questionable.

Which I’ve just answered. There is strong evidence to support the inference that “blue” is an objective condition.

Once again, you seemingly have no problem at all with this statement: There is strong evidence to support the inference that wavelengths are an objective condition.

What you apparently keep getting hung up on is all of the other information that the brain typically adds to a more rudimentary signal; hence my separating “blue” from “experience of blueness” (though it was “red” before).

“Blue” is just the wavelength information. The “Experience of Blueness” is all of the memories/associations/bits of information that the wavelength triggers. That is the phenomenological component. It is a separate, accumulative aspect.

And then there’s the example of pain.

Which is a similar equivocation issue that you simply are not parsing properly. “Pain” refers to the signals/information that get sent through your body when some form of damage—real or imagined—occurs to some part of the body. The “Experience of Pain” is that accumulative triggered aspect referenced above.

The signal that is first generated by the sensory devices in, say, the big toe on your left foot IS “pain.” That it takes a few nano-seconds for that signal to travel to the brain and a few more nano-seconds for the brain to interpret that signal and locate its origin and coordinate the troops, etc., etc., etc. is part of the “experience of pain.”

So if, as you say, you are interested in just the rudimentary signals, then there you have it. All you're parsing then is the telegraph lines of the body and how they send signals throughout.

But what you seemed to be saying was a lot like taking an actual reel of film and a magnifying glass to each frame and thinking you’re watching the movie. Those are (obviously) two entirely different propositions.

 

[ruby sparks]

Because if it isn’t random, then it stands to reason that it must be copying some sort of objective condition.

Some sort of objective condition, yes. Wavelengths, for instance, or photon energies.

That is strong evidence to support the inference that a blueberry is objectively (intrinsically) blue and the reason we evolved cones and rods is to reflect that objective condition.

I would say it is only strong evidence that there is some objective external condition. I am suggesting that blueness is not part of it. It certainly does not seem to need to be part of it, at the very least, and is not required for explanations.

Which I’ve just answered. There is strong evidence to support the inference that “blue” is an objective condition.

There is evidence, yes, but I believe it is likely an illusion. As with the colours seeming to be in the objects, imo (and indeed the pain being in your toe, for that matter).

Again, we do not say that pain is in the stimuli, so that is a precedent.

Once again, you seemingly have no problem at all with this statement: There is strong evidence to support the inference that wavelengths are an objective condition.

Correct. I have no problem with that statement. I might have a few caveats, I might allow that it's photons, or information, or some such objective condition.

What you apparently keep getting hung up on is all of the other information that the brain typically adds to a more rudimentary signal; hence my separating “blue” from “experience of blueness” (though it was “red” before).

“Blue” is just the wavelength information. The “Experience of Blueness” is all of the memories/associations/bits of information that the wavelength triggers. That is the phenomenological component. It is a separate, accumulative aspect.

Yes, but to say there's blue in the wavelengths is, I think, getting the tail to wag the dog. In my preferred model, we only call the light 'blue' because that's what it causes us to experience. We do not intuitively realise the colour is only a brain experience and is not in either the light or the objects lit.

Which is a similar equivocation issue that you simply are not parsing properly. “Pain” refers to the signals/information that get sent through your body when some form of damage—real or imagined—occurs to some part of the body. The “Experience of Pain” is that accumulative triggered aspect referenced above.

Sure. All I'm saying is that the pain is in the brain and not in the noxious stimuli.

The signal that is first generated by the sensory devices in, say, the big toe on your left foot IS “pain.” That it takes a few nano-seconds for that signal to travel to the brain and a few more nano-seconds for the brain to interpret that signal and locate its origin and coordinate the troops, etc., etc., etc. is part of the “experience of pain.”

Yes.

So if, as you say, you are interested in just the rudimentary signals, then there you have it. All you're parsing then is the telegraph lines of the body and how they send signals throughout.

There is also (on many ocasions but not all) an associated conscious experience. And I'm suggesting that the properties of it ('redness', pain, whatever) are only in the brain, as experiences, and not in the stimuli, and that is ALL I am saying. And I didn't even think it up as an idea, I just read about it, as the view of a number of colour experts, including the psychologist quoted in the opening lines of the OP, and the physicist who made the video animation (and I could quote a number of others also, if you asked me to; it's not that unusual a proposition at all). It appears to hold together pretty well as a model. There is no proof of it, obviously.

But what you seemed to be saying was a lot like taking an actual reel of film and a magnifying glass to each frame and thinking you’re watching the movie. Those are (obviously) two entirely different propositions.

I'm not even getting into that. That would have to do with self, I think. I'm leaving that aside, albeit I know that it, and the hard problem of conscious are important related issues. I'm just primarily doing something more limited here. To repeat, the location of the colours is what I'm mainly doing. And some of the possible ramifications if they are only in the brain and not in the stimuli. Eg that it would seem to to follow that brightness is also only in the brain. And sound. Etc.

Somewhat as neuroscientist David Eagleman tries to express the idea, "If you could perceive reality as it is, you would be shocked by its colorless, odorless, tasteless silence. Outside your brain, there is just energy and matter.”

 

[fromderinside]

I would say it is only strong evidence that there is some objective external condition. I am suggesting that blueness is not part of it. It certainly does not seem to need to be part of it, at the very least, and is not required for explanations.

There is evidence, yes, but I believe it is likely an illusion. As with the colours seeming to be in the objects,

Once again, you seemingly have no problem at all with this statement: There is strong evidence to support the inference that wavelengths are an objective condition.

Correct. I have no problem with that statement. I might have a few caveats, I might allow that it's photons, or information, or some such objective condition.

Somewhat as neuroscientist David Eagleman tries to express the idea, "If you could perceive reality as it is, you would be shocked by its colorless, odorless, tasteless silence. Outside your brain, there is just energy and matter.”

Last first. From the bottom up. Eagleman would be wrong since what we sense is categorically visual, olfactory, gustatory, auditory, and about five other categories of approximating the world to the necessary extent we can. What we experience is reality since it is our sample of the total available information potentially accessible to us.

It is only when all information is available that we might choose other descriptors of energy and matter given our sensory relation to them. I'm pretty sure we wouldn't conclude there is nothing but energy and matter because even if that is all there is there are still choices to be made about exploiting it.

Now the rest. I say you are wrong.

The need comes from requirements to consume only that which won't kill you. Snakes mimic poisonous ones in color and and banding to give them greater likelihood of surviving. The need comes from requirements to be most likely consumed. Plants mimic color and shape of their fruit to be more readily taken by consumers.

There must be a lesson in there somewhere for you suggesting color is an important factor in one surviving. Obviously snakes and fruiting plants don't know your conditions for staying alive. Yet they evolve by adapting to color, not frequency, to increase their probability of reproducing. Color is material because sensing isn't perfect.

As I wrote earlier we discriminate on energy in the visual system because we can't detect every frequency in photic stimuli. Instead we distinguish ranges of energy, frequency bands, to detect color. All you have to do is add up what some life does through evolution to survive with what other life does through evolution to survive. Not a hard task really. Color is real because species success is determined by exploiting it to survive.

You really don't need more than the above.

 

[ruby sparks]

Snakes mimic poisonous ones in color and and banding to give them greater likelihood of surviving. The need comes from requirements to be most likely consumed. Plants mimic color and shape of their fruit to be more readily taken by consumers.

That is the everyday, colloquial way of putting it, yes, and some philosophical colour realists might say it too, but it is nevertheless quite widely agreed among the various relevant academic disciplines that the colours are not in the objects (here, organisms). The surface properties (texture, chemical composition, etc) absorb some differentiated radiations and reflect others.

 

[fromderinside]

Scientists agree that the color of an object sensed is in the frequencies arriving at the eye. Since receivers aren't ideal, groups of frequencies make up what is sensed which result in relative energy detection (the colors of the rainbow). Fortunately humans have developed sensors that can replicate what humans sense in such as rainbows. Consequently philosophers are relieved of the need to invent mind and consciousness for such species as those who use and respond to other species such as insects and octopus.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Some sort of objective condition, yes. Wavelengths, for instance, or photon energies.

Ok, how do you know this? Inference based on the evidence. It's the only way you could. So you accept that wavelengths and "photon energies" are objective conditions based on the evidence. Great.

There is strong evidence to support the inference that “blue” is an objective condition.

There is evidence, yes, but I believe it is likely an illusion.

Except that the same evidence that leads you to infer wavelengths are objective ALSO affirms that a blueberry is intrinsically blue.

Again, we do not say that pain is in the stimuli, so that is a precedent.

No, that is semantics. What we call "pain" IS the stimuli.

What you apparently keep getting hung up on is all of the other information that the brain typically adds to a more rudimentary signal; hence my separating “blue” from “experience of blueness” (though it was “red” before).

“Blue” is just the wavelength information. The “Experience of Blueness” is all of the memories/associations/bits of information that the wavelength triggers. That is the phenomenological component. It is a separate, accumulative aspect.

Yes, but to say there's blue in the wavelengths is, I think, getting the tail to wag the dog.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that what we call "blue" IS the wavelength. You are confusing the category with something in the category.

In my preferred model, we only call the light 'blue' because that's what it causes us to experience.

And we're back to equivocation.

We do not intuitively realise the colour is only a brain experience

EVERYTHING is "only a brain experience." That is a given. That is a brute fact. The brain models the world. But to make a model, it must have something objective to model, yes? So the question is, what is the objective condition that the brain is modeling?

In regard to color, we have sensory input devices we call "cones" and "rods" that are inside our eyeballs that evidently encode the wavelengths according to the color spectrum.

So we have evidence of tools our species evolved to do a specific job. The only possible way that could have evolved is if it were doing so in order to mimic an objective condition.

All I'm saying is that the pain is in the brain and not in the noxious stimuli.

Category error. What we refer to as "pain" IS the noxious stimuli plus other triggered associations/investigations/added information, etc.

The signal that is first generated by the sensory devices in, say, the big toe on your left foot IS “pain.” That it takes a few nano-seconds for that signal to travel to the brain and a few more nano-seconds for the brain to interpret that signal and locate its origin and coordinate the troops, etc., etc., etc. is part of the “experience of pain.”

Yes.

So if, as you say, you are interested in just the rudimentary signals, then there you have it. All you're parsing then is the telegraph lines of the body and how they send signals throughout.

There is also (on many ocasions but not all) an associated conscious experience.

So, there is a stimulus (the wavelength that we call "blue") and then there is other additional information associated with that wavelength (that we call "the experience of blueness").

And I'm suggesting that the properties of it ('redness', pain, whatever) are only in the brain,

Once again, EVERYTHING is always "in the brain." That is our information processing center, but why you are separating out organs in our skulls as some sort of monolithic "other" and not simply a part of the entire sensory processing unit that is our body is beyond me.

"Brain" is simply a shorthand for the category of all organs inside our skull. It is not "internal" or separate from the world anymore than a driver in a car is separate or "internal" from the world.

I just read about it, as the view of a number of colour experts, including the psychologist quoted in the opening lines of the OP

Who are likewise simply employing inference, but they are doing so in a manner that actually ignores a significant part of the evidence against their position.

You can't know if blue is intrinsic to the blueberry. You can only infer that it is based on the evidence. So, again, what is the evidence?

A species that developed rods and cones in their optical sensory input devices. Why would that species do that? Just, you know, what the hell? No, that's not how evolution works. Evolution is based on adaptation. Adaptation requires that there be an objective condition that one is adapting to.

So, forget "blueness" as that is irrelevant. Where did "blue" come from? We know how it gets encoded. It is a specific wavelength that hits our rods and cones in a particular way that our rods and cones encode as part of the packet of stimuli information being sent to the brain for higher order processing.

Why would rods and cones exist at all, let alone perform the function they perform if it were NOT trying to faithfully recreate/mimic/copy an external condition?

But what you seemed to be saying was a lot like taking an actual reel of film and a magnifying glass to each frame and thinking you’re watching the movie. Those are (obviously) two entirely different propositions.

I'm not even getting into that. That would have to do with self, I think.

But you're not. You keep equivocating "blue" with "blueness." Blue is the stimulus; blueness is the "conscious experience" (i.e., the higher order brain processing of ALL information associated with the wavelength).

Somewhat as neuroscientist David Eagleman tries to express the idea, "If you could perceive reality as it is, you would be shocked by its colorless, odorless, tasteless silence. Outside your brain, there is just energy and matter.”

And that's a bold assertion that he cannot prove is the objective condition one way or the other. Just because our brains' job is to piece together information gathered by our body does not axiomatically translate into there not being intrinsic information being gathered by our body. Just the opposite in fact.

So he's only arguing ONE SIDE of the equation and making the same kinds of equivocal, semantics mistakes I believe you are making. Yes, the brain puts the pieces of the puzzle together. This is not news. So the question becomes, is the body accurately breaking down the information that goes into forming those puzzle pieces or just randomly making shit up?

It makes no sense that the body just makes shit up. Not only would that immediately result in our species' demise, we have, once again, literally billions of case studies walking around right now that proces the color spectrum to be a shared and specific process.

So if that's NOT the case, what is the body doing? If color is not in the object, then why do we have rods and cones whose job it is to encode a blueberry with color? Eagleman (and you) are simply ignoring that part of the equation, but in an ironic fashion because just as I can't objectively establish that blue is in the object, neither can he (or you) objectively establish that it is not.

Which put us back to inference based on the evidence and the evidence--the billions of case studies and the fact that an adaptive species would not just develop something without cause or purpose and certainly could not do so uniformly across the entire species--is, once again, strongly indicative of color being in the object and our eyes merely serve as a translator of that intrinsic information for the brain to further process.

Think of the scene in Willy Wonka where Mike TV gets "teleported" into the TV set. The technology (analogous to our body) must scan and break down Mike's body in order to transfer that code to a receiver that then recreates his body (only in a smaller scale).

But the technology must be dealing with an objective condition in order to faithfully recreate it. It can't just go, "I don't know what Mike is, so I'll just make it all up." What would come out the other end would be equivalent to an elephant turned inside out.

It MUST be faithfully recreating/copying/mimicking/modelling something that objectively exists all in its own right in order for their to be any kind of teleportation possible and not just merely doing a sketch drawing or something similar.

 

[fromderinside]

I just read about it, as the view of a number of colour experts, including the psychologist quoted in the opening lines of the OP

The colors we see are based on physical properties of objects and lights that cause us to see them as colored ....

Then he hand waves about contravening evidence which is based on what? since he makes no physical, psychological, philosophical link.

You seem to be dancing with those who do so on the points of pins.

We've* hammered you pretty hard. You don't seem ready to really counter our empirically based evidence beyond the level of some hope or belief or personal preference. We* wonder why?

*^{_{Co-opted Koyaanisqats}}

 

[ruby sparks]

What we call "pain" IS the stimuli.

When I said stimuli I meant external stimuli (eg electricity) because that is the direct analogy with light (that the colours are in the external stimiuli).

If you are saying that external phenomena (such as electricity) have pain in them, rather than having other properties which can cause the experience of pain in brains, then I don't believe I have ever heard that claimed before.

It's an important claim here, because if we agree that pain is not in the external phenomena then we have a precedent. On the other hand, if you believe that pain exists externally then we are at loggerheads. But it (the latter) would seem a very unusual claim to me.

You can't know if blue is intrinsic to the blueberry.

True, but the case for the blue not being a property of a blueberry itself is pretty widely understood and generally accepted among relevant experts. Claiming the blue is in the blueberry would be an unusual claim nowadays. Again, I don't believe I have heard that claim by anyone specifically, though I have read (eg at the Stanford University Philosophy page on colour) that some philosophical colour realists apparently still hold it. I do not believe I have heard any relevant scientist say it in modern times.

It MUST be faithfully recreating/copying/mimicking/modelling something that objectively exists all in its own right ......

We've already agreed this several times and I have no idea why you keep bringing it up.

The 'something' doesn't need to be colour. Colour, like pain, could be a brain experience and not present in the external world.

Regarding something else you mentioned, proof. I believe I have already said in the thread that proof is not an option, I also said in the OP that the matter is unresolved. I am merely presenting (and I have chosen to defend) a model put forward by numerous others which seems to work well in that it has good explanatory power. It may not be the correct model, I don't think we can know for sure. I don't think anyone proposing the model is claiming to know for sure. But I do believe it is one valid/possible model that holds together very well.

 

[ruby sparks]

Consequently philosophers are relieved of the need to invent mind and consciousness for such species as those who use and respond to other species such as insects and octopus.

As previously stated, if some organisms process light without having conscious experiences to accompany that process, that says nothing about those species that do have such experiences as part of the process. Presumably, some organisms do not experience pain either, and then on the other hand, some do.

So citing organisms that don't experience colour potentially says as little about colour (no matter what or where it is) as citing organisms that don't experience pain says about pain.

 

[fromderinside]

Another Egyptian oaring down de-Nille.

If they process light where it appears that they respond to color then they are responding to color, especially if that color signals it to avoid the thing with color, especially if so doing leads to greater likelihood of that animal surviving. Those facts pose problems with there being a need for, say, humans to be conscious to do so.

You are calling that 'little'? A causal effect, reason, for behavior is no little anything. Your 'problem' has gone from annoying to ridiculous.

 

[ruby sparks]

Another Egyptian oaring down de-Nille.

If they process light where it appears that they respond to color then they are responding to color, especially if that color signals it to avoid the thing with color, especially if so doing leads to greater likelihood of that animal surviving. Those facts pose problems with there being a need for, say, humans to be conscious to do so.

You are calling that 'little'? A causal effect, reason, for behavior is no little anything. Your 'problem' has gone from annoying to ridiculous.

Again, no one is denying a causal effect, but the causal effect does not need to be colour, for humans or any organism. Other properties could be sufficient.

Nor is anyone saying that consciousness is needed for a given organism to process light.

However, when colour is consciously experienced by a particular organism, then as with pain, it seems, it could be caused in that organism by other impinging properties of the external world. It is a plausible explanation and one considered so by numerous experts in the relevant fields, only some of whom have so far been cited in this thread. Some of these people may hold to it more strongly than others, but as far as I can tell, none of them are explicitly saying it is an absolute certainty. It is just an example of an apparently valid and coherent model for an as yet unresolved issue.

 

[fromderinside]

The causal effect I mention is mimicry, a staple of ecology, comparative psychology, physiological science. If we can link the evolution of language to genetics and generate a model that works we can do so in comparative behaviour and genetics. Your model isn't supported in such a way other than through 'it seems' ignoring demonstrated 'it isn't'.

Unsupported and hearsay claims need some substantive basis. Apparent's loses luster with each demonstration of nope. This is not an angels on pin exercise. Just as the world is flat so too is color only in the mind. We're trying to save you having to support mind in insects.

Pain receptors:

Update on the Neurophysiology of Pain Transmission and Modulation: Focus on the NMDA-Receptor https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885392499001207

Abstract
Pain is detected by two different types of peripheral nociceptor neurons, C-fiber nociceptors with slowly conducting unmyelinated axons, and A-delta nociceptors with thinly myelinated axons. During inflammation, nociceptors become sensitized, discharge spontaneously, and produce ongoing pain. Prolonged firing of C-fiber nociceptors causes release of glutamate which acts on N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptors in the spinal cord. Activation of NMDA receptors causes the spinal cord neuron to become more responsive to all of its inputs, resulting in central sensitization. NMDA-receptor antagonists, such as dextromethorphan, can suppress central sensitization in experimental animals. NMDA-receptor activation not only increases the cell's response to pain stimuli, it also decreases neuronal sensitivity to opioid receptor agonists. In addition to preventing central sensitization, co-administration of NMDA-receptor antagonists with an opioid may prevent tolerance to opioid analgesia.

Asymmetric Cooling and Heating Perception https://www.researchgate.net/profil...Asymmetric-Cooling-and-Heating-Perception.pdf

Abstract. A series of experiments have been conducted to evaluate human thermal response to asymmetric thermal stimulation. It has beenvalidated in previous studies that asymmetric thermal stimuli can create perceptions of heating or cooling while maintaining a constant average temperature applied to the skin. In this study we implemented threeexperimental procedures on the ventral forearm to evaluate asymmetricthermal stimulation. These experiments also examined several ways tocollect perceptual thermal responses from subjects. Constant and averagetemperatures were adjusted based on multiple aspects of thermal perception theories. Temporally optimized thermal patterns were implementedand resulted in counter-intuitive thermal perceptions. These results alsodemonstrated that the perceptual neutral point differs from the thermallyneutral point on the skin.

My arguments were based upon two areas of sensing and perceiving. The two articles above begin to lay out the two aspects of my argument, pain and perception of skin applied stimuli producing them. There are others for seketal, muscular. and visceral sensation and perception if you are at all interested.