Free Will And Free Choice

[fromderinside]

We know beyond any doubt no information about light enters the nervous system. There is no mechanism.

We know what the light is doing.

It is not in any way passing information.

It is causing a molecule to shift. It is converted to molecular energy within a molecule that immediately stabilizes and loses a different amount of energy.

Please read:  Entropy in thermodynamics and information theory

Moreover, a direct connection can be made between the two. If the probabilities in question are the thermodynamic probabilities p_i: the (reduced) Gibbs entropy σ can then be seen as simply the amount of Shannon information needed to define the detailed microscopic state of the system, given its macroscopic description. Or, in the words of G. N. Lewis writing about chemical entropy in 1930, "Gain in entropy always means loss of information, and nothing more". To be more concrete, in the discrete case using base two logarithms, the reduced Gibbs entropy is equal to the average of the minimum number of yes–no questions needed to be answered in order to fully specify the microstate, given that we know the macrostate.

Not to put too fine a point on it your assertions are BS.

 

[untermensche]

We know beyond any doubt no information about light enters the nervous system. There is no mechanism.

We know what the light is doing.

It is not in any way passing information.

It is causing a molecule to shift. It is converted to molecular energy within a molecule that immediately stabilizes and loses a different amount of energy.

Please read:  Entropy in thermodynamics and information theory

Moreover, a direct connection can be made between the two. If the probabilities in question are the thermodynamic probabilities p_i: the (reduced) Gibbs entropy σ can then be seen as simply the amount of Shannon information needed to define the detailed microscopic state of the system, given its macroscopic description. Or, in the words of G. N. Lewis writing about chemical entropy in 1930, "Gain in entropy always means loss of information, and nothing more". To be more concrete, in the discrete case using base two logarithms, the reduced Gibbs entropy is equal to the average of the minimum number of yes–no questions needed to be answered in order to fully specify the microstate, given that we know the macrostate.

Not to put too fine a point on it your assertions are BS.

This is nothing but hand waving.

Give me a specific mechanism where the energy magically passes information.

We know what the energy is doing.

Some of us know.

Some of us don't give a damn that they have no mechanism for their miraculous claims.

If any processing occurs, if any probabilistic processing occurs, the only information available to the nervous system is (+,-) information about the transformation of a molecule. That is the only information available to the nervous system. And I have a mechanism. The only initial mechanism. The only thing the energy is doing.

Your religious claims are tedious.

You have nothing.

The state of matter is quantum information. But what the energy is doing in the cell is fully known. It is causing a reaction. It is not passing quantum information. There are no cellular mechanisms that could get that information.

You want to talk about cells and the nervous system but don't seem very interested in cellular mechanisms.

You want to talk about your religious beliefs instead.

 

[fromderinside]

Please read:  Entropy in thermodynamics and information theory

Moreover, a direct connection can be made between the two. If the probabilities in question are the thermodynamic probabilities p_i: the (reduced) Gibbs entropy σ can then be seen as simply the amount of Shannon information needed to define the detailed microscopic state of the system, given its macroscopic description. Or, in the words of G. N. Lewis writing about chemical entropy in 1930, "Gain in entropy always means loss of information, and nothing more". To be more concrete, in the discrete case using base two logarithms, the reduced Gibbs entropy is equal to the average of the minimum number of yes–no questions needed to be answered in order to fully specify the microstate, given that we know the macrostate.

Not to put too fine a point on it your assertions are BS.

This is nothing but hand waving.

Give me a specific mechanism where the energy magically passes information.

We know what the energy is doing.

Some of us know.

Some of us don't give a damn that they have no mechanism for their miraculous claims.

If any processing occurs, if any probabilistic processing occurs, the only information available to the nervous system is (+,-) information about the transformation of a molecule. That is the only information available to the nervous system. And I have a mechanism. The only initial mechanism. The only thing the energy is doing.

Your religious claims are tedious.

You have nothing.

The state of matter is quantum information. But what the energy is doing in the cell is fully known. It is causing a reaction. It is not passing quantum information. There are no cellular mechanisms that could get that information.

You want to talk about cells and the nervous system but don't seem very interested in cellular mechanisms.

You want to talk about your religious beliefs instead.*
*^{_{Left visible untermenscehe BS for soothers can confirm it's BS}}

Page two:

 Materials science

A material is defined as a substance (most often a solid, but other condensed phases can be included) that is intended to be used for certain applications. ^[4] There are a myriad of materials around us; they can be found in anything from buildings and cars to spacecraft. The main classes of materials are metals, semiconductors, ceramics and polymers.^[5] New and advanced materials that are being developed include nanomaterials, biomaterials,^[6] and energy materials to name a few.

The basis of materials science is studying the interplay between the structure of materials, the processing methods to make that material, and the resulting material properties. The complex combination of these produce the performance of a material in a specific application. Many features across many length scales impact material performance, from the constituent chemical elements, it's microstructure, and macroscopic features from processing. Together with the laws of thermodynamics and kinetics materials scientists aim to understand and improve materials.

 List of materials properties

A materials property is an intensive property of some material, i.e., a physical property that does not depend on the amount of the material. These quantitative properties may be used as a metric by which the benefits of one material versus another can be compared, thereby aiding in materials selection.A property may be a constant or may be a function of one or more independent variables, such as temperature. Materials properties often vary to some degree according to the direction in the material in which they are measured, a condition referred to as anisotropy. Materials properties that relate to different physical phenomena often behave linearly (or approximately so) in a given operating range^{[further explanation needed]}. Modeling them as linear functions can significantly simplify the differential constitutive equations that are used to describe the property.

Equations describing relevant materials properties are often used to predict the attributes of a system.
The properties are measured by standardized test methods. Many such methods have been documented by their respective user communities and published through the Internet; see ASTM International.

Optical properties[edit]

Main article: Optical properties

• Absorbance: How strongly a chemical attenuates light
• Birefringence
• Color
• Electro-optic effect
• Luminosity
• Optical activity
• Photoelasticity
• Photosensitivity
• Reflectivity
• Refractive index
• Scattering
• Transmittance

 Optics

Optics is the branch of physics that studies the behaviour and properties of light, including its interactions with matter and the construction of instruments that use or detect it.^[1] Optics usually describes the behaviour of visible, ultraviolet, and infrared light. Because light is an electromagnetic wave, other forms of electromagnetic radiation such as X-rays, microwaves, and radio waves exhibit similar properties.^[1]Most optical phenomena can be accounted for by using the classical electromagnetic description of light. Complete electromagnetic descriptions of light are, however, often difficult to apply in practice. Practical optics is usually done using simplified models. The most common of these, geometric optics, treats light as a collection of rays that travel in straight lines and bend when they pass through or reflect from surfaces. Physical optics is a more comprehensive model of light, which includes wave effects such as diffraction and interference that cannot be accounted for in geometric optics. Historically, the ray-based model of light was developed first, followed by the wave model of light. Progress in electromagnetic theory in the 19th century led to the discovery that light waves were in fact electromagnetic radiation.

Some phenomena depend on the fact that light has both wave-like and particle-like properties. Explanation of these effects requires quantum mechanics. When considering light's particle-like properties, the light is modelled as a collection of particles called "photons". Quantum optics deals with the application of quantum mechanics to optical systems.

Optical science is relevant to and studied in many related disciplines including astronomy, various engineering fields, photography, and medicine (particularly ophthalmology and optometry). Practical applications of optics are found in a variety of technologies and everyday objects, including mirrors, lenses, telescopes, microscopes, lasers, and fibre optics.

 Color

Color is attributes and perceptions related to the wavelengths of light. It is often described through sets of primary colors such as RGB and sets of combinations of primary colors, with names such as red, orange, yellow, green, blue, or violet. Color can also be used to visualize invisible spectra such as x-ray in false color images. The perception of color, color vision combined with mesopic vision, derives from the stimulation of photoreceptor cells (in particular cone cells and ipRGCs in the human eye and other vertebrate eyes) by electromagnetic radiation (in the visible spectrum in the case of humans). Scotopic vision may contribute to color vision as it is a feature of the visual system that results in the visual perception of black, white, and tints or shades of grey. This likely plays an important role in the perception of hues, colorfulness, and intensity. Color categories, or physical specifications of color, are associated with objects through which different wavelengths of various intensities of light is reflected and/or dispersed. This is governed by the object’s physical properties and the physical properties of light such as absorption, emission spectra, phase velocity, etc. By defining a color space, colors can be identified numerically by coordinates, which in 1931 were also named in global agreement with internationally agreed color names like mentioned above (red, orange, etc.) by the International Commission on Illumination. The RGB color space for instance is a primary color space corresponding to human trichromacy and to the three cone cell types that respond to three bands of light: long wavelengths, peaking near 564–580 nm (red); medium-wavelength, peaking near 534–545 nm (green); and short-wavelength light, near 420–440 nm (blue).^[1][2] There may also be more than three color dimensions in other color spaces, such as in the CMYK color model, wherein one of the dimensions relates to a color's colorfulness).

The photo-receptivity of the "eyes" of other species also varies considerably from that of humans and so results in correspondingly different color perceptions that cannot readily be compared to one another. Honey bees and bumblebees have trichromatic color vision sensitive to ultraviolet but insensitive to red. Papilio butterflies possess six types of photoreceptors and may have pentachromatic vision.^[3] The most complex color vision system in the animal kingdom has been found in stomatopods (such as the mantis shrimp) with up to 12 spectral receptor types thought to work as multiple dichromatic units.^[4]

The science of color is sometimes called chromatics, colorimetry, or simply color science. It includes the study of the perception of color by the human eye and brain, the origin of color in materials, color theory in art, and the physics of electromagnetic radiation in the visible range (that is, what is commonly referred to simply as light).

 Perception

Perception (from the Latinperceptio, meaning gathering or receiving) is the organization, identification, and interpretation of sensory information in order to represent and understand the presented information or environment.^[2]All perception involves signals that go through the nervous system, which in turn result from physical or chemical stimulation of the sensory system.^[3] For example, vision involves light striking the retina of the eye; smell is mediated by odor molecules; and hearing involves pressure waves.

Perception is not only the passive receipt of these signals, but it's also shaped by the recipient's learning, memory, expectation, and attention.^[4][5] Sensory input is a process that transforms this low-level information to higher-level information (e.g., extracts shapes for object recognition).^[5] The process that follows connects a person's concepts and expectations (or knowledge), restorative and selective mechanisms (such as attention) that influence perception.

Perception depends on complex functions of the nervous system, but subjectively seems mostly effortless because this processing happens outside conscious awareness.^[3]

Since the rise of experimental psychology in the 19th century, psychology's understanding of perception has progressed by combining a variety of techniques.^[4]Psychophysics quantitatively describes the relationships between the physical qualities of the sensory input and perception.^[6]Sensory neuroscience studies the neural mechanisms underlying perception. Perceptual systems can also be studied computationally, in terms of the information they process. Perceptual issues in philosophy include the extent to which sensory qualities such as sound, smell or color exist in objective reality rather than in the mind of the perceiver.^[4]

The above presentation is provided for the very dense, those who can't see that what we're discussing are material - that is material domains and material properties world - not mental or subjective world.

Only those who have a vested interest in preserving their Gods would dispute such a clear delineation of materiality of color.

So that's what I expert you to do untermensche. Cling to your fantasies and fantastic thinking mind and color reside in the same world.

You won't have a comeback beyond your chants which are now completely revealed as just empty unsupportable blurts.

Your attempts to fill in gaps in state of the art are, at best, base on religious belief which is unacceptable, at worst just trolling by a lazy mind.

 

[untermensche]

A waste of your and my time.

I'm not interested in your meaningless hand waving with no point to any of it.

Give me a specific mechanism where the cell somehow learns about energy.

You telling me about what minds have learned is not a mechanism to allow a cell to know anything.

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

https://physics.info/color/

 

[fromderinside]

I'll let up when you learn how to talk about things without personalizing them. Cells and molecules don't make decisions. You need to learn that the Institute of Physics lists color as an intrinsic material property of optics, the study of light.

My post lists evidence which falsifies every claim you made with your feeble attempt to find something supporting your fraudulent claims.

Your reference depends on such as mind to justify treatment of color. Mind isn't a material thing so any statement using mind as a vessel for color is an illicit use of dualistic thinking rather than science to justify the concept.

Keep on twisting in the wind my friend. You look terrible. Those of us who see what you do take great pleasure in watching you twist and turn in the face of established physics and chemistry trying to keep up such miserable defenses.

You are up denial without a paddle.

 

[DBT]

Meanwhile:

''Goldberg brings his description of frontal dysfunction to life with insightful accounts of clinical cases. These provide a good description of some of the consequences of damage to frontal areas and the disruption and confusion of behavior that often results. Vladimir, for example, is a patient whose frontal lobes were surgically resectioned after a train accident. As a result, he is unable to form a plan, displays an extreme lack of drive and mental rigidity and is unaware of his disorder. In another account, Toby, a highly intelligent man who suffers from attention deficits and possibly a bipolar disorder, displays many of the behavioral features of impaired frontal lobe function including immaturity, poor foresight and impulsive behavior

''Neurons are highly specialized cells that transmit impulses within animals to cause a change in a target cell such as a muscle effector cell or glandular cell.''

Further, the physical structure of a neuron is itself composed of 'determinants' in the form of he nucleus and cytoplasmic inclusions and organelles, etc....as such, a neuron is no more than biological mechanism that has evolved to process information in a set way.

''The cell body of a neuron, called the soma, contains the cell nucleus and the majority of the cytoplasmic inclusions and organelles. Radial extensions of the soma cell membrane, called dendrites, extend to other neurons and form the interface where impulses are transmitted from neuron to neuron. One long extension of the soma, called the axon, is the primary conduit through which the neuron transmits impulses to neurons downstream in the signal chain. Axons range in length from around 0.1 millimeters to nearly a meter in length with some neurons in the sciatic nerve. Axons branch into smaller extensions at their terminal end and eventually create synapses with the target cell (neuron, muscle cell, etc.).''

 

[untermensche]

Meanwhile:

Meanwhile more worthless deflection from the peanut gallery.

The issue is a mechanism. A cellular mechanism. Ever heard of such a thing?

A specific mechanism to tell the cell about energy.

You got one?

You got anything on topic and useful?

I don't need a superficial crude lesson in cellular biology and a bunch of irrelevant smoke.

Show me a mechanism, a specific mechanism, where the cell learns about the energy. And show me how the cell learns about the energy using the specific mechanism.

That is the only thing that can give the cell information about energy.

Hint: There isn't one.

 

[fromderinside]

If the issue were mechanism, cellular mechanism, then either cellular RNA or DNA should suffice, has sufficed, is sufficing.

 

[DBT]

Meanwhile:

Meanwhile more worthless deflection from the peanut gallery.

The issue is a mechanism. A cellular mechanism. Ever heard of such a thing?

A specific mechanism to tell the cell about energy.

You got one?

You got anything on topic and useful?

I don't need a superficial crude lesson in cellular biology and a bunch of irrelevant smoke.

Show me a mechanism, a specific mechanism, where the cell learns about the energy. And show me how the cell learns about the energy using the specific mechanism.

That is the only thing that can give the cell information about energy.

Hint: There isn't one.

Presenting a Strawman and ignoring the science doesn't make your case. You have no case. You ignore the science.

Why not deal with the question that I have repeatedly asked you?

Which is: how does mind achieve autonomy from the brain?

That is your claim, justify it. Make a case that's supported by evidence.

 

[untermensche]

If the issue were mechanism, cellular mechanism, then either cellular RNA or DNA should suffice, has sufficed, is sufficing.

Insane misunderstanding of what is necessary.

What is necessary is a mechanism within the furthest most sensory cell to gain information about energy.

But we already know what the energy is doing.

And because of what it is doing any information it might have is instantly lost in a sea of changing information about energy within a molecule. And in that instant the molecule stabilizes and releases some different amount of energy based on the stability of the new configuration.

It is called light energy because it is a hand that turns on the lights.

 

[untermensche]

Meanwhile:

Meanwhile more worthless deflection from the peanut gallery.

The issue is a mechanism. A cellular mechanism. Ever heard of such a thing?

A specific mechanism to tell the cell about energy.

You got one?

You got anything on topic and useful?

I don't need a superficial crude lesson in cellular biology and a bunch of irrelevant smoke.

Show me a mechanism, a specific mechanism, where the cell learns about the energy. And show me how the cell learns about the energy using the specific mechanism.

That is the only thing that can give the cell information about energy.

Hint: There isn't one.

Presenting a Strawman and ignoring the science doesn't make your case. You have no case. You ignore the science.

Why not deal with the question that I have repeatedly asked you?

Which is: how does mind achieve autonomy from the brain?

That is your claim, justify it. Make a case that's supported by evidence.

I'm done with your stupid questions.

You have never answered any of mine.

You are dishonest and lost.

Good luck.

 

[fromderinside]

If the issue were mechanism, cellular mechanism, then either cellular RNA or DNA should suffice, has sufficed, is sufficing.

It is called light energy because it is a hand that turns on the lights.

It's called light energy because a lazy person opted for white light energy, it, More completely light energy needs be treated

Color is attributes and perceptions related to the wavelengths of light. It is often described through sets of primary colors such as RGB and sets of combinations of primary colors, with names such as red, orange, yellow, green, blue, or violet. Color can also be used to visualize invisible spectra such as x-ray in false color images. The perception of color, color vision combined with mesopic vision, derives from the stimulation of photoreceptor cells (in particular cone cells and ipRGCs in the human eye and other vertebrate eyes) by electromagnetic radiation (in the visible spectrum in the case of humans).

The fact there are several different photosensitive substances in separate photoreceptors provides a basis for neurons comparing responses from these different cell output to buildup color models. All each cell does is report stimulation. The location and sensitivity aspects are determined by other interactions with neural nets in visual sensory system. Certainly you aren't going to say color, sound, touch just go to cortex without saying they go to cortex representing from whence they their information came?

Before you fly off another handle

Color categories, or physical specifications of color, are associated with objects through which different wavelengths of various intensities of light is reflected and/or dispersed. This is governed by the object’s physical properties and the physical properties of light such as absorption, emission spectra, phase velocity,

Do you see anything there about magical faeries and experience? Nope. Your view is made up in the ailing brain from religious presumptions by untermensche and untermensche alone.

BTB I'll take the collective interpretations of scientific literature from wiki and resources thereof every time over your personal selection of choice passages from articles written by some hack grinding a mentalist ax. You are the FOX news of this thread. Congratulations.

 

[untermensche]

The fact there are several different photosensitive substances in separate photoreceptors provides a basis for neurons comparing responses from these different cell output to buildup color models. All each cell does is report stimulation. The location and sensitivity aspects are determined by other interactions with neural nets in visual sensory system. Certainly you aren't going to say color, sound, touch just go to cortex without saying they go to cortex representing from whence they their information came?

Gibberish.

There is only one mechanism. I talk about specific mechanisms and what the energy is actually doing. You wave your hands around real fast.

There is only one thing the energy we call the 'visual spectrum' is doing.

It transforms one molecule. It does not pass any information about itself.

There are evolved structures in the cells, the three types of "cones", that make it easier or harder for certain sections of the spectrum to cause the molecule to shift.

And from this variation alone the brain creates color.



https://physics.info/color/

That is the entire variation the nervous system is dealing with. 3 cellular structures that enable three different segments of the visual spectrum to transform the same molecule.

Color is an experience.

The stimulus for the brain to create color is never experienced.

The day you start talking about real actual cellular mechanisms is the day you will begin to understand. At least it will be the day you say something that is meaningful.

 

[fromderinside]

Fortunately humans and other species are consistent in what they report under control of experiment. It turns out what you consider experience, something a living thing who has the ability to sense and report reports consistent with the sensitive material in receptors.

That is not subjective thing, experience.

Rather it is consistent material responses to conditions that can be explained by an opponent process model of color resolution of different frequencies of light by the being whether it be those with color vision, those with limited color vision, or those with only gray scale vision. All the elements after experience are material included among optical properties of light.

Supported as follows:

Color is attributes and perceptions related to the wavelengths of light. It is often described through sets of primary colors such as RGB and sets of combinations of primary colors, with names such as red, orange, yellow, green, blue, or violet. Color can also be used to visualize invisible spectra such as x-ray in false color images. The perception of color, color vision combined with mesopic vision, derives from the stimulation of photoreceptor cells (in particular cone cells and ipRGCs in the human eye and other vertebrate eyes) by electromagnetic radiation (in the visible spectrum in the case of humans). Scotopic vision may contribute to color vision as it is a feature of the visual system that results in the visual perception of black, white, and tints or shades of grey

It is from this outcome in experiments that physicists conclude material processes in systems reacting to light frequency, color, is physically determined which they classify as material.

You focus on the wrong thing, molecule change of state as your justification for how neurons communicate which cannot be supported when it is materially demonstrated that beings treat color as material basis for describing the effects of selective light frequencies arriving at the nervous system as optical objective properties.

Physicists were very clear in insisting on material evidence as basis throughout their chain of determination of optical properties. It is from wandering philosophers the chain is ignored because it is easier for them to invent new linkages to old misunderstanding by so doing.

Science is completing connections by experiment, not by hand wave.

 

[DBT]

Presenting a Strawman and ignoring the science doesn't make your case. You have no case. You ignore the science.

Why not deal with the question that I have repeatedly asked you?

Which is: how does mind achieve autonomy from the brain?

That is your claim, justify it. Make a case that's supported by evidence.

I'm done with your stupid questions.

You have never answered any of mine.

You are dishonest and lost.

Good luck.

It's a simple question: according to your analysis, how does the mind achieve autonomy from the brain? As it is you who is making the claim, why don't you explain it?

 

[fromderinside]

Just piling on here. Assume one changes the words to other symbols describing the operations applied in my presentation. What is found? The numbers and operations remain the same just the words connecting them are replaced by other symbols. The results remain the same.

What happens to such as experience or mind which only consists of the words changed in your refereed piece? Why they lacks operations and numbers that characterize it.

Seems to me their meanings are lost. Ergo experience nor mind have no operational meaning, they are changed to gibberish by the change in symbols.

On the other hand operations and associated numbers remain characterizing the findings of those who wrote that to which I referred regardless descriptive language used around them.

I think that is what you will find when you look at what the departments of physics which collaborated to generate their definitions I supplied. Whereas mind and experience go away in your offered alternative rendering them baseless.

You wanted philosophy. You got it.

 

[untermensche]

Just piling on here. Assume one changes the words to other symbols describing the operations applied in my presentation. What is found?

What?

This is not clear at all.

What are you talking about?

"YOUR" "PRESENTATION"

You mean a mind experiencing?

 

[DBT]

Again: It's a simple question: according to your analysis, how does the mind achieve autonomy from the brain? As it is you who is making the claim, why don't you explain it?

Meanwhile:
"For the past twelve years", says Dehaene, "my research team has been using every available brain research tool, from functional MRI to electro- and magneto-encephalography and even electrodes inserted deep in the human brain, to shed light on the brain mechanisms of consciousness. I am now happy to report that we have acquired a good working hypothesis. In experiment after experiment, we have seen the same signatures of consciousness: physiological markers that all, simultaneously, show a massive change when a person reports becoming aware of a piece of information (say a word, a digit or a sound).

"Furthermore, when we render the same information non-conscious or "subliminal", all the signatures disappear. We have a theory about why these signatures occur, called the global neuronal workspace theory. Realistic computer simulations of neurons reproduce our main experimental findings: when the information processed exceeds a threshold for large-scale communication across many brain areas, the network ignites into a large-scale synchronous state, and all our signatures suddenly appear.

But this is already more than a theory. We are now applying our ideas to non-communicating patients in coma, vegetative state, or locked-in syndromes. The test that we have designed with Tristan Bekinschtein, Lionel Naccache, and Laurent Cohen, based on our past experiments and theory, seems to reliably sort out which patients retain some residual conscious life and which do not.''

 

[fromderinside]

Just piling on here. Assume one changes the words to other symbols describing the operations applied in my presentation. What is found?

You mean a mind experiencing?

If you insist. Since you haven't to date specified any mechanism for either, your doing so would be nice.

But no. I'm talking about Institute of Physics  Materials science presentation of physical basis for  Color https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color#Physics_of_color

From those I want you to concentrate on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsically_photosensitive_retinal_ganglion_cell where human receptor sensitive elements are more completely presented than those you default to in your pathetic mind related reference along with a much more extensive discussion of how color signature is sustained though out material brain processing of visual stimuli.

There is enough raw meat in what I just presented for you to rethink your bark, your usual nonsensical non-answers, to what materialists have found about the physical nature of color. IMHO it blasts your mind construct interpretation all the way back to the third century BC.

Their, Materials science, presentation takes on all the tasks of vision from controlling input through processing mechanisms and structures right up to the generation of specific identities of input vis a vis color and orientation representation in cortex.

Understanding both sides of the argument, yours and mine, requires attention to all of what Institute of Physics materials science has specified in its conclusion about the physical nature of color. IMHO Your mind thingy needs substantial resuscitation.

 

[untermensche]

You simply can't get past the bad idea that what humans have learned about the energy is the same things the cells know about it.

The cells know NOTHING about the energy. Absolutely nothing. The energy transforms a molecule and is gone. The cell has no way to understand why the molecule shifted. I have a mechanism.

Your position is a miracle.

Color cannot possibly be a feature of energy or of objects in the world. That is impossible.