COLOUR

[untermensche]

His posts read, to me, like he has read an article by some fringe philosopher expounding on the old "brain in a jar" argument or more likely watched a Youtube video of it. He didn't really understand it but thought it was cool so added his muddled interpretation of it to the old argument turning it into gibberish.

Second that thought.

Yet one post down you say this:

All we have is our experiences yes

You are one lost puppy.

 

[steve_bank]

Oh? So I am right, and all these pages you and others have argued this point were a waste of my time?

but we have science to give us rational ways to explain the brain and perceptions.

I use nothing but science to make claims about color.

I talk about what the energy is actually doing and draw rational conclusions.

All the energy is doing is causing the isomerization of retinal.

There is no possible way for the nervous system to know what caused the isomerization of retinal or anything about what caused the isomerization of retinal.

To think there is color information in energy passed to the nervous system from energy is to believe in miracles.

Yet again electromagnetic radiation is out there, we categorize by wavelength or frequency.

That is an assumption derived from experience.

Remember one line up when you agreed all we have are our experiences?

Blue is an arbitray lanel assigned to a particular wavelength.

Blue is not assigned to energy.

Blue is an experience correlated with the energy.

But being correct about things only matters to some.

No different than a word for weight of an object.

The weight is a property of the object correlated to it's mass.

Color is not a property of light.

The eye and brain are hardwired together like the wiring in a house, there is no information, there is detection of wavelengths.

Your utter ignorance of how the nervous system works and bad conclusions from bad assumptions are not an argument.

Nothing in the nervous system is hardwired like the wiring of a house.

There is no detection of wavelength by the nervous system.

There are evolved mechanisms that react to the isomerization of retinal. These mechanisms have no way to understand why the retinal transformed. Retinal is not an evolved mechanism. It is a molecule.

I have to agree you appear to be referring to some kind of odd author. Possibly net videos.. You are incapable of a rational science based discussion.

 

[untermensche]

I have to agree you appear to be referring to some kind of odd author. Possibly net videos.. You are incapable of a rational science based discussion.

You are incapable of understanding what I'm saying.

To me you appear as some crank that understands next to nothing and can't form a rational argument.

These ideas are the product of my mind.

 

[steve_bank]

I have to agree you appear to be referring to some kind of odd author. Possibly net videos.. You are incapable of a rational science based discussion.

You are incapable of understanding what I'm saying.

To me you appear as some crank that understands next to nothing and can't form a rational argument.

These ideas are the product of my mind.

True, I am unable to comprehend what you are talking about. You shift back and forth between agreeing mind is a function of the physical brain, then you seem to say it is something lese. The broad use of the words perception and experience without any definition.

It is on you to make a consistent statement which you have not done. It may be clear to you but not to us. One of those so called 'communication problems'.

The physical detection of light and images of color are purely physical. It is like a computer not getting that it is comprised of wires and circuits.

If you have a position then state it, I doubt you can.

My position on color is ...a,b,c....

 

[untermensche]

I have to agree you appear to be referring to some kind of odd author. Possibly net videos.. You are incapable of a rational science based discussion.

You are incapable of understanding what I'm saying.

To me you appear as some crank that understands next to nothing and can't form a rational argument.

These ideas are the product of my mind.

True, I am unable to comprehend what you are talking about. You shift back and forth between agreeing mind is a function of the physical brain, then you seem to say it is something lese. The broad use of the words perception and experience without any definition.

Your lack of understanding in not me switching any position.

Position: Just because something is an assumption that does not mean the assumption is wrong. Saying something is an assumption is not saying it is imaginary. If it is an assumption based on experience it is either rational and useful or it is not.

My assumption based on my experience is that the mind is something that arises out of brain activity.

But the fact is, we are minds (that which experiences). When we experience a yellow banana we have no doubt we are experiencing a yellow banana. That we are experiencing things and what we are experiencing is known to us beyond doubt. All else are assumptions drawn from our experiences. We make these assumptions at a very early age. When we bump into a table and experience pain we assume there is something out in the world causing our experience of the table and our experience of pain.

But we are not experiencing the world directly. The banana itself is not in our minds somewhere. The banana is assumed to be out in the world based on our experiences of a banana.

We are experiencing an experience of the banana and the experience is yellow. The banana is not. The banana does not have color as a property.

The banana does have shape and mass as a property. We can measure those properties directly. We cannot measure color directly. We can only measure the stimulus for color production (energy) and experience has informed us about the correlations between that stimulus and human experience.

In terms of the energy that reflects off the banana. It causes the isomerization of retinal which causes the reflexive experience of the banana. Our experience is correlated to the energy but not caused by it directly. The banana has reflective and absorptive properties. But it dos not have color as a property. Color is only an experience.

It is on you to make a consistent statement which you have not done. It may be clear to you but not to us.

Unless you are schizophrenic I have no idea what you mean by "us". I have directly answered your questions as best I can. I answer individuals directly. Some are more lost than others.

The physical detection of light and images of color are purely physical.

The word "physical" is not a magical word.

It is an assumption based on experience.

We label what we assume is correlated to certain experiences "physical". But with the advent of quantum physics the term "physical" has been reduced to equations and probabilities and poetry.

If you have a position then state it, I doubt you can.

Your continual lack of understanding is not an argument.

I have stated a consistent position from the start.

 

[steve_bank]

True, I am unable to comprehend what you are talking about. You shift back and forth between agreeing mind is a function of the physical brain, then you seem to say it is something lese. The broad use of the words perception and experience without any definition.

Your lack of understanding in not me switching any position.

Position: Just because something is an assumption that does not mean the assumption is wrong. Saying something is an assumption is not saying it is imaginary. If it is an assumption based on experience it is either rational and useful or it is not.

My assumption based on my experience is that the mind is something that arises out of brain activity.

But the fact is, we are minds (that which experiences). When we experience a yellow banana we have no doubt we are experiencing a yellow banana. That we are experiencing things and what we are experiencing is known to us beyond doubt. All else are assumptions drawn from our experiences. We make these assumptions at a very early age. When we bump into a table and experience pain we assume there is something out in the world causing our experience of the table and our experience of pain.

But we are not experiencing the world directly. The banana itself is not in our minds somewhere. The banana is assumed to be out in the world based on our experiences of a banana.

We are experiencing an experience of the banana and the experience is yellow. The banana is not. The banana does not have color as a property.

The banana does have shape and mass as a property. We can measure those properties directly. We cannot measure color directly. We can only measure the stimulus for color production (energy) and experience has informed us about the correlations between that stimulus and human experience.

In terms of the energy that reflects off the banana. It causes the isomerization of retinal which causes the reflexive experience of the banana. Our experience is correlated to the energy but not caused by it directly. The banana has reflective and absorptive properties. But it dos not have color as a property. Color is only an experience.

It is on you to make a consistent statement which you have not done. It may be clear to you but not to us.

Unless you are schizophrenic I have no idea what you mean by "us". I have directly answered your questions as best I can. I answer individuals directly. Some are more lost than others.

The physical detection of light and images of color are purely physical.

The word "physical" is not a magical word.

It is an assumption based on experience.

We label what we assume is correlated to certain experiences "physical". But with the advent of quantum physics the term "physical" has been reduced to equations and probabilities and poetry.

If you have a position then state it, I doubt you can.

Your continual lack of understanding is not an argument.

I have stated a consistent position from the start.

Oky doky. Hebeda Hebeda Hebada uhh dats all folks. Que up the Looney Tunes theme.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1edqWrtXMo

And that's a wrap folks.


You bring out my inner Bug's Bunny.

 

[WAB]

Your lack of understanding in not me switching any position.

Position: Just because something is an assumption that does not mean the assumption is wrong. Saying something is an assumption is not saying it is imaginary. If it is an assumption based on experience it is either rational and useful or it is not.

My assumption based on my experience is that the mind is something that arises out of brain activity.

But the fact is, we are minds (that which experiences). When we experience a yellow banana we have no doubt we are experiencing a yellow banana. That we are experiencing things and what we are experiencing is known to us beyond doubt. All else are assumptions drawn from our experiences. We make these assumptions at a very early age. When we bump into a table and experience pain we assume there is something out in the world causing our experience of the table and our experience of pain.

But we are not experiencing the world directly. The banana itself is not in our minds somewhere. The banana is assumed to be out in the world based on our experiences of a banana.

We are experiencing an experience of the banana and the experience is yellow. The banana is not. The banana does not have color as a property.

The banana does have shape and mass as a property. We can measure those properties directly. We cannot measure color directly. We can only measure the stimulus for color production (energy) and experience has informed us about the correlations between that stimulus and human experience.

In terms of the energy that reflects off the banana. It causes the isomerization of retinal which causes the reflexive experience of the banana. Our experience is correlated to the energy but not caused by it directly. The banana has reflective and absorptive properties. But it dos not have color as a property. Color is only an experience.



Unless you are schizophrenic I have no idea what you mean by "us". I have directly answered your questions as best I can. I answer individuals directly. Some are more lost than others.

The physical detection of light and images of color are purely physical.

The word "physical" is not a magical word.

It is an assumption based on experience.

We label what we assume is correlated to certain experiences "physical". But with the advent of quantum physics the term "physical" has been reduced to equations and probabilities and poetry.

If you have a position then state it, I doubt you can.

Your continual lack of understanding is not an argument.

I have stated a consistent position from the start.

Oky doky. Hebeda Hebeda Hebada uhh dats all folks. Que up the Looney Tunes theme.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1edqWrtXMo

And that's a wrap folks.


You bring out my inner Bug's Bunny.

Sounds more like uh...b'deeeeeeeee b'deeeeeeeee b'deeeeeeeeyaaah...that's all folks! to me.

But everything's subjective.

ETA: Steve's link cut out Porky! Here's Porky:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBzJGckMYO4

 

[untermensche]

Probability of survival, provides the mechanism for evolution to work.

All traits arise randomly.

Some traits provide a greater probability to survive than other traits. Those random traits have a survival advantage.

But evolution is driven by randomly changing environments.

 

[untermensche]

Position: Just because something is an assumption that does not mean the assumption is wrong. Saying something is an assumption is not saying it is imaginary. If it is an assumption based on experience it is either rational and useful or it is not.

My assumption based on my experience is that the mind is something that arises out of brain activity.

But the fact is, we are minds (that which experiences). When we experience a yellow banana we have no doubt we are experiencing a yellow banana. That we are experiencing things and what we are experiencing is known to us beyond doubt. All else are assumptions drawn from our experiences. We make these assumptions at a very early age. When we bump into a table and experience pain we assume there is something out in the world causing our experience of the table and our experience of pain.

But we are not experiencing the world directly. The banana itself is not in our minds somewhere. The banana is assumed to be out in the world based on our experiences of a banana.

We are experiencing an experience of the banana and the experience is yellow. The banana is not. The banana does not have color as a property.

The banana does have shape and mass as a property. We can measure those properties directly. We cannot measure color directly. We can only measure the stimulus for color production (energy) and experience has informed us about the correlations between that stimulus and human experience.

In terms of the energy that reflects off the banana. It causes the isomerization of retinal which causes the reflexive experience of the banana. Our experience is correlated to the energy but not caused by it directly. The banana has reflective and absorptive properties. But it dos not have color as a property. Color is only an experience.

The word "physical" is not a magical word.

It is an assumption based on experience.

We label what we assume is correlated to certain experiences "physical". But with the advent of quantum physics the term "physical" has been reduced to equations and probabilities and poetry.

 

[fromderinside]

Now you are getting there. Can you see how randomness is a directional thing when there are species competing for resources. Of course you can. So get off the concentrating on haphazard.

You really need to ask yourself why are narrow energy reacting chemicals included in receptors if those narrow energy products aren't a clue about how we treat those narrow bands of energy producing materials. It's not as random as you want to see it. There are larger considerations we need to account before we go off and produce new 'ilities' which you can't specify how they work while the brain and receptor systems go about their merry way adapting virtuously toward better use of material in the habitat.

To much dogma to little adaptive thinking on your part methinks,

Rather than building ever more complex and incomprehensive explanations why not consider how random works for one organism and against another in the world. I'm pretty sure that if you did you'd realized it would be easier to stay with that which one can manipulate rather go of into some world of what-if-isms.

So now not only are you in trouble with probability in your argument you are in trouble with explaining learning as well. See what I mean?

As we go on it's only going to get worse for you.

 

[untermensche]

Now you are getting there. Can you see how randomness is a directional thing when there are species competing for resources. Of course you can. So get off the concentrating on haphazard.

I understand how randomly arising traits will grant differing survival probabilities.

But that never makes a trait arise in any other way than through random mutations. No change is forced or planned. Some random changes are just favored over others in terms of survival probabilities.

This is about how traits arise. All traits arise the same way. Randomly.

This is not about how traits might remain to be built upon by future random mutations. That is a whole different topic.

You really need to ask yourself why are narrow energy reacting chemicals included in receptors if those narrow energy products aren't a clue about how we treat those narrow bands of energy producing materials.

It is a series of random contingencies that retinal is there to be acted upon by the energy. Just like it is a series of random contingencies that you have legs to walk with.

But the evolved mechanism is the cellular mechanism that responds to the movement of a nitrogen atom. The cell only indirectly reacts to the energy. It's reaction is only correlated to the energy. It is actually reacting to the movement of a nitrogen atom.

This is known.

To much dogma to little adaptive thinking on your part methinks,

It is a simple rational conclusion.

The cell only responds to the energy indirectly.

What it really responds to is the movement of a nitrogen atom.

Color must therefore be based on the movement of nitrogen atoms.

There is no possible way for color to be based on the energy that causes the isomerization. There is no mechanism for that.

Rather than building ever more complex and incomprehensive explanations why not consider how random works for one organism and against another in the world. I'm pretty sure that if you did you'd realized it would be easier to stay with that which one can manipulate rather go of into some world of what-if-isms.

So now not only are you in trouble with probability in your argument you are in trouble with explaining learning as well. See what I mean?

As we go on it's only going to get worse for you.

No I don't see.

This is about the initial mechanism for the reflexive production of the experience of color.

The initial mechanism is not the energy striking the retinal molecule. That is not an evolved cellular mechanism.

The initial mechanism is the reaction to the movement of a nitrogen atom.

This is known.

 

[DBT]

Once again, the mind is what a brain is doing. Mind is not an independent agent like you believe. This is not because I say so, but what the evidence supports. For this point, it doesn't matter that we don't understand how the brain does it, only that it does: that the brain generates a range of features, abilities and experiences that we call ''mind.''

 

[fromderinside]

It is a simple rational conclusion.

The cell only responds to the energy indirectly.

What it really responds to is the movement of a nitrogen atom.

Color must therefore be based on the movement of nitrogen atoms.

There is no possible way for color to be based on the energy that causes the isomerization. There is no mechanism for that.

Actually it would be surprising if anything other than a frequency sensitive compound lead to generation of an action potential in a visual receptor system. The compound is 'selected' because it is frequency sensitive and it induces a process leading to generating an action potential. That is the whole idea of visual receptor.

The action potential is the signal that a receptor sensitive to particular electromagnetic energy responded to light falling on it. Further it is signal that activity in a particular part of the retinal field responds to particular EM radiation.

That is the information that a cell in a particular locus responds via producing a action potential by a particular substance to specific light attributes is the message transmitted by the action potential.

That the sensitive material produces a cascade leading to an action potential is what has been selected for by genetic processes. Had the material sensitive been other than light sensitive one might have an argument that it was all just random chance.

 

[untermensche]

It is a simple rational conclusion.

The cell only responds to the energy indirectly.

What it really responds to is the movement of a nitrogen atom.

Color must therefore be based on the movement of nitrogen atoms.

There is no possible way for color to be based on the energy that causes the isomerization. There is no mechanism for that.

Actually it would be surprising if anything other than a frequency sensitive compound lead to generation of an action potential in a visual receptor system.

There is nothing surprising.

The initial mechanisms are fully known.

The cell has evolved mechanisms that react to the movement of a nitrogen atom.

This is known.

The compound is 'selected' because it is frequency sensitive and it induces a process leading to generating an action potential. That is the whole idea of visual receptor.

That is your prejudice and bad preconception. Bad assumptions don't trump actual facts.

The fact is the cell responds to the movement of a nitrogen atom.

It only indirectly responds to the energy. The activity of the cell is only correlated to the energy.

The action potential is the signal that a receptor sensitive to particular electromagnetic energy responded to light falling on it.

This is nothing but your bad assumption.

The action potential is a cellular response to the movement of nitrogen atoms.

The initial mechanism is known.

 

[Rhea]

TFT strives to enable a forum for meaningful discussion of ideas. Insults, goading, baiting and flaming are against the terms of use.

The non-discussion posts have been removed. Please continue meaningful discussion of the topic. Do not continue the insult fest, it will be moderated and infractions issued that restrict your access to the fora.

 

[fromderinside]

The initial mechanism is known.

OK.

I've had enough of your song and dance.

Yes, the initial mechanism for producing release of transmitter substance from the receptor to it's capture by sites at the action potential producing neuron are well known. That merely explains depolarization at the receptor and possible release of one or many different transmitter substances therefrom.

So too are known the processes for producing and transmitting action potentials along the processes of a variety of neurons. A bunch of stuff impacting the what, how many, and how long, with lots of possibilities and variations. Variations range from quantity and type of transmitter substance at the receptor to aggregation and repetition of action potentials at one or many neurons in response to receiving transmitter substance of one sort or another form receptors.

Fixed by nitrogen the action potential is not. Enough of your cis-trans circus. Get down to explaining how so many possibilities can only lead to receptor signaling the nitrogen movement it is you seem to think to which it is receptors are limited.

Your caboodle is collapsing on your kit. Time to explain yourself untermensche.

 

[steve_bank]

I understand how randomly arising traits will grant differing survival probabilities.

But that never makes a trait arise in any other way than through random mutations. No change is forced or planned. Some random changes are just favored over others in terms of survival probabilities.

This is about how traits arise. All traits arise the same way. Randomly.

This is not about how traits might remain to be built upon by future random mutations. That is a whole different topic.



It is a series of random contingencies that retinal is there to be acted upon by the energy. Just like it is a series of random contingencies that you have legs to walk with.

But the evolved mechanism is the cellular mechanism that responds to the movement of a nitrogen atom. The cell only indirectly reacts to the energy. It's reaction is only correlated to the energy. It is actually reacting to the movement of a nitrogen atom.

This is known.

To much dogma to little adaptive thinking on your part methinks,

It is a simple rational conclusion.

The cell only responds to the energy indirectly.

What it really responds to is the movement of a nitrogen atom.

Color must therefore be based on the movement of nitrogen atoms.

There is no possible way for color to be based on the energy that causes the isomerization. There is no mechanism for that.

Rather than building ever more complex and incomprehensive explanations why not consider how random works for one organism and against another in the world. I'm pretty sure that if you did you'd realized it would be easier to stay with that which one can manipulate rather go of into some world of what-if-isms.

So now not only are you in trouble with probability in your argument you are in trouble with explaining learning as well. See what I mean?

As we go on it's only going to get worse for you.

No I don't see.

This is about the initial mechanism for the reflexive production of the experience of color.

The initial mechanism is not the energy striking the retinal molecule. That is not an evolved cellular mechanism.

The initial mechanism is the reaction to the movement of a nitrogen atom.

This is known.

That is reasonably rational and I mostly agree on evolution. I still do not understand the overall point you are trying to make.

If mind is a function of brain and brain-body is the result of random mutations, then precptions and sense are then evolutionary. As are thoughts and reasoning. Discussion on clor is suggestive without bringing in evolution.

The fact that the orange tint of lions coincides with a color deficiency in the eyes of a prey is an evolutionary advantage for the predator. Lions with the genes eat better and have more offspring.

You seem to be arguing that our perception of colors is not based in science and science does not answer 'what is color'. Is this what you are saying?

 

[steve_bank]

The original OP

"People universally believe that objects look colored because they are colored, just as we experience them. The sky looks blue because it is blue, grass looks green because it is green, and blood looks red because it is red. As surprising as it may seem, these beliefs are fundamentally mistaken. Neither objects nor lights are actually “colored” in anything like the way we experience them. Rather, color is a psychological property of our visual experiences when we look at objects and lights, not a physical property of those objects or lights. The colors we see are based on physical properties of objects and lights that cause us to see them as colored, to be sure, but these physical properties are different in important ways from the colors we perceive".

[1999, attributed to Dr Stephen Palmer, Professor of Psychology (speciality: Cognition), Visual Perception Laboratory, University of California at Berkeley].

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/color/

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Claim 1: objects are not themselves coloured, they do not have colour.

Claim 2A: Colour is a psychologically-experienced 'mental' phenomenon only. Colour does not really exist other than in this way.

Claim 2B: Colour is a psychologically-experienced 'mental' phenomenon of consciousness only. Colour does not really exist other than in this way.

I think claim 1 is the easier and more recognised to be the case. I might hold that one quite strongly.

Claim 2A is, I think, not something that can be shown to be the case by any reasonable standard and is therefore (I would separately claim) an unresolved issue, but it is my inclination to go along with it and so I will start off defending the statement quoted above (which is apparently in blue).

Claim 2B is slightly more onerous, and may be even more up for debate, imo.

Does anyone have any views on the topic?

 

[steve_bank]

Seems like he is saying what we see as blue in our mental video images is perception not physical. I can see the point. The perception is not the light itself.

I don't see where that gets you. Whatever the perception is, it is still based in the physical brain.

 

[fromderinside]

Given what I've studied, the perception of things are pretty near as close to being ideal representations of those things as is physically possible. If one has an ideal detector, observer, one's perception will consistently be within two to five percent of that ideal. Check it out  Signal detection theory.  Ideal observer analysis