Objective/Subjective

[bilby]

Oh shit. You don't even know you are naked.

Meaningless gibberish from somebody that thinks energy is colored.

Yet can't show anything about the energy to demonstrate it is colored.

He didn't say it was colored. He said it was red. Which it is, even if some people experience redness as a smell.

EM radiation at that wavelength is, objectively and by definition, red. Subjectively, nobody else knows what 'red' is like for you to experience. But objectively, we know that if you experience EM radiation of that wavelength, you will report that it is red. Because EVERYONE, no matter what their experience, will report that wavelength as 'red'. Which makes it objectively red. Even if my experience, which I call 'red', matches the experience you would call 'peppermint'. A 700nm EM photon is objectively red, because all accurate observers report it as such. Their reports are objective; Their experiences are subjective (and inaccessible to others).

 

[untermensche]

Oh shit. You don't even know you are naked.

Meaningless gibberish from somebody that thinks energy is colored.

Yet can't show anything about the energy to demonstrate it is colored.

He didn't say it was colored. He said it was red. Which it is, even if some people experience redness as a flavour.

EM radiation at that wavelength is, objectively and by definition, red. Subjectively, nobody else knows what 'red' is like for you to experience. But objectively, we know that if you experience EM radiation of that wavelength, you will report that it is red. Because EVERYONE, no matter what their experience, will report that wavelength as 'red'. Which makes it objectively red.

No energy is red.

There is invisible energy that can cause evolved brains to create the experience of red by transforming a retinal molecule from cis to trans.

There is a correlation between the energy and the specific evolved reaction to it.

But the energy has no red in it. You couldn't show me any red in the energy.

And if you presented the energy to some alien that had a brain that didn't use that energy for vision they would never be able to find red in it.

Red is an experience and there is no way to make a person who doesn't experience red understand what it is.

 

[bilby]

He didn't say it was colored. He said it was red. Which it is, even if some people experience redness as a flavour.

EM radiation at that wavelength is, objectively and by definition, red. Subjectively, nobody else knows what 'red' is like for you to experience. But objectively, we know that if you experience EM radiation of that wavelength, you will report that it is red. Because EVERYONE, no matter what their experience, will report that wavelength as 'red'. Which makes it objectively red.

No energy is red.

There is invisible energy that can cause evolved brains to create the experience of red by transforming a retinal molecule from cis to trans.

There is a correlation between the energy and the specific evolved reaction to it.

But the energy has no red in it. You couldn't show me any red in the energy.

And if you presented the energy to some alien that had a brain that didn't use that energy for vision they would never be able to find red in it.

Red is an experience and there is no way to make a person who doesn't experience red understand what it is.

Red is ALSO an objective label that can be correctly applied to EM radiation of wavelength 700nm, because every observer of that radiation, regardless of the details of their experience, will correctly report that radiation as 'red'.

Words in English can have more than one meaning, and 'red' doesn't only mean what you are claiming it to mean. Indeed, your claimed meaning is indeterminate and subjective, so even you don't know what it implies. But my claimed meaning is objective, and the only way to deny it, is to be wrong.

As I am painfully aware of your ability to be loudly and verbosely wrong practically indefinitely, I shall leave you the last word (or ten thousand) on the matter. If you're wondering what my response to your further commentary would be, simply re-read my posts above.

 

[untermensche]

He didn't say it was colored. He said it was red. Which it is, even if some people experience redness as a flavour.

EM radiation at that wavelength is, objectively and by definition, red. Subjectively, nobody else knows what 'red' is like for you to experience. But objectively, we know that if you experience EM radiation of that wavelength, you will report that it is red. Because EVERYONE, no matter what their experience, will report that wavelength as 'red'. Which makes it objectively red.

No energy is red.

There is invisible energy that can cause evolved brains to create the experience of red by transforming a retinal molecule from cis to trans.

There is a correlation between the energy and the specific evolved reaction to it.

But the energy has no red in it. You couldn't show me any red in the energy.

And if you presented the energy to some alien that had a brain that didn't use that energy for vision they would never be able to find red in it.

Red is an experience and there is no way to make a person who doesn't experience red understand what it is.

Red is ALSO an objective label that can be correctly applied to EM radiation of wavelength 700nm, because every observer of that radiation, regardless of the details of their experience, will correctly report that radiation as 'red'.

Words in English can have more than one meaning, and 'red' doesn't only mean what you are claiming it to mean.

Red is an experience and nothing else.

Calling energy red is just not understanding what is going on. Energy has features but it is invisible. It has no color.

You can say energy is associated with the experience of color but it has no color or color information in it.

The experience of color is a contingency of evolution. It is not a process where nervous systems translate energy. The energy is just a hand that hits a switch.

Do you call your hand "blue" if it turns on a blue light?

 

[skepticalbip]

Red is ALSO an objective label that can be correctly applied to EM radiation of wavelength 700nm, because every observer of that radiation, regardless of the details of their experience, will correctly report that radiation as 'red'.

Words in English can have more than one meaning, and 'red' doesn't only mean what you are claiming it to mean.

Red is an experience and nothing else.

You are still unable to distinguish your subjective experience from objective reality. Red (not a color) is, by definition, a narrow band of EM radiation around 700nM. You sense it as a color when you experience it, but that is only in your head. Someone else may sense it as a taste. But both of you will identify the stimulus as red because it was that specific frequency (defined as red) that triggered the subjective experience for both of you.

Maybe another of your problems is lack of understanding of the English language.

 

[untermensche]

Red is ALSO an objective label that can be correctly applied to EM radiation of wavelength 700nm, because every observer of that radiation, regardless of the details of their experience, will correctly report that radiation as 'red'.

Words in English can have more than one meaning, and 'red' doesn't only mean what you are claiming it to mean.

Red is an experience and nothing else.

You are still unable to distinguish your subjective experience from objective reality. Red (not a color) is, by definition, a narrow band of EM radiation around 700nM. You sense it as a color when you experience it, but that is only in your head. Someone else may sense it as a taste. But both of you will identify the stimulus as red because it was that specific frequency (defined as red) that triggered the subjective experience for both of you.

The experience of red is associated with a certain stimulus.

The stimulus is not red in any way or directing the nervous system to make red in any way. The nervous system's reaction to the stimulus is an evolved contingency, not a forced reaction.

You want your bad understandings to count for something because they are common.

They don't.

 

[skepticalbip]

You are still unable to distinguish your subjective experience from objective reality. Red (not a color) is, by definition, a narrow band of EM radiation around 700nM. You sense it as a color when you experience it, but that is only in your head. Someone else may sense it as a taste. But both of you will identify the stimulus as red because it was that specific frequency (defined as red) that triggered the subjective experience for both of you.

The experience of red is associated with a certain stimulus.

The stimulus is not red in any way...

You really do have trouble with the English language. The narrow band of wavelengths around 700nM is, BY DEFINITION, red. The fact that you can only conceive of red as a color is your problem (the same old inability to distinguish subjective from objective).

And now for your spate of gibberish.

....or directing the nervous system to make red in any way. The nervous system's reaction to the stimulus is an evolved contingency, not a forced reaction.

You want your bad understandings to count for something because they are common.

They don't.

 

[untermensche]

You really do have trouble with the English language. The narrow band of wavelengths around 700nM is, BY DEFINITION, red. The fact that you can only conceive of red as a color is your problem (the same old inability to distinguish subjective from objective).

And now for your spate of gibberish.

....or directing the nervous system to make red in any way. The nervous system's reaction to the stimulus is an evolved contingency, not a forced reaction.

You want your bad understandings to count for something because they are common.

They don't.

Not by definition.

By misunderstanding.

 

[skepticalbip]

You really do have trouble with the English language. The narrow band of wavelengths around 700nM is, BY DEFINITION, red. The fact that you can only conceive of red as a color is your problem (the same old inability to distinguish subjective from objective).

And now for your spate of gibberish.

....or directing the nervous system to make red in any way. The nervous system's reaction to the stimulus is an evolved contingency, not a forced reaction.

You want your bad understandings to count for something because they are common.

They don't.

Not by definition.

By misunderstanding.

Gotcha

So I am to accept you as the expert over those in the sciences of optics and spectroscopy?

 

[untermensche]

Not by definition.

By misunderstanding.

Gotcha

So I am to accept you as the expert over those in the sciences of optics and spectroscopy?

There is no expert that can show any information about red in energy.

You want your bad understandings to count for something.

Scientific definitions define what things are.

No energy is "red". There is only invisible energy associated with the creation of the experience of red by evolved brains.

If you can't experience red you have no way to understand what it is.

 

[skepticalbip]

Not by definition.

By misunderstanding.

Gotcha

So I am to accept you as the expert over those in the sciences of optics and spectroscopy?

There is no expert that can show any information about red in energy.

You want your bad understandings to count for something.

Scientific definitions define what things are.

No energy is "red". There is only invisible energy associated with the creation of the experience of red by evolved brains.

If you can't experience red you have no way to understand what it is.

WTF? You are retracing old ground.

Is it that you don't read posts or that you are incapable of understanding what you read.

 

[untermensche]

There is no expert that can show any information about red in energy.

You want your bad understandings to count for something.

Scientific definitions define what things are.

No energy is "red". There is only invisible energy associated with the creation of the experience of red by evolved brains.

If you can't experience red you have no way to understand what it is.

WTF?

Is it that you don't read posts or that you are incapable of understanding what you read.

Your lack of understanding does not count for anything.

White is the experience you have when the entire spectrum enters the eye.

Even that energy you claim is red.

 

[fromderinside]

The frequency is x. All men respond to frequency x as red. For convenience the frequency x is labeled as red. An identity frequency x = red is specified. All men respond to frequency x as red. A bit of onto to you. bilby I'd never do what you do so well so well.

 

[untermensche]

The energy, if it is not combined with any other energy, has a correlation to the experience of red.

It is not red in any way.

Do you know what a correlation is?

The sunrise in Florida tomorrow is correlated with 7:12 AM.

 

[fromderinside]

Wonderful. Explain to us why people consistently see wave length of 700 Angstrom radiated light as red. Nope. No correlation just a fixed range of wavelength all the time. Obviously you are confusing the variability of perception as correlation of seeing. Not at all related.

 

[untermensche]

Wonderful. Explain to us why people consistently see wave length of 700 Angstrom radiated light as red. Nope. No correlation just a fixed range of wavelength all the time. Obviously you are confusing the variability of perception as correlation of seeing. Not at all related.

Because the light always does the same thing to cis retinal. In the so-called "blue" cone that wavelength of energy is prevented from transforming the molecule based upon it's EM environment.

But that is all the energy is doing. Transforming retinal.

And the experience of a specific color is related to a specific array of retinal transformations.

Why are you not understanding that the experience of color is related to retinal transformations, not some feature of the energy that caused it?

And when that 700 Angstrom energy is combined with other wavelengths of energy suddenly it has no information about "red" anymore. It now miraculously has partial information about some other color.

Your position is a miracle.

 

[bilby]

Wonderful. Explain to us why people consistently see wave length of 700 Angstrom radiated light as red. Nope. No correlation just a fixed range of wavelength all the time. Obviously you are confusing the variability of perception as correlation of seeing. Not at all related.

Point of information: 700nm is 7,000Å. A nanometre is 10^-9m, and an Ångström is 10^-10m

700Å electromagnetic radiation would be in the Extreme Ultra Violet band.

 

[fromderinside]

Yes it would. Thank you bilby.

Excuse. I just didn't transfer it directly from source. Went by memory, Whoops.

I'll remember to do what I usually do, direct quote referenced information. It's more faithful to respecting published scientific information. You'd think with all the mistakes I make when I don't adhere to that policy I would be a bit more careful. Especially with untermensche in the house.

 

[untermensche]

Yes it would. Thank you bilby.

Excuse. I just didn't transfer it directly from source. Went by memory, Whoops.

I'll remember to do what I usually do, direct quote referenced information. It's more faithful to respecting published scientific information. You'd think with all the mistakes I make when I don't adhere to that policy I would be a bit more careful. Especially with untermensche in the house.

This is the philosophy section.

And your philosophy is you believe in miracles. You think there is information about blue in the hand that turns on a blue light.

Knowing anything about the light will not explain color. It is trivial in terms of the experience of color which is an evolved trait of brains. Energy is merely a hand that hits a switch.

You have to look at the transformation of retinal molecules and more specifically the movement of a nitrogen atom on the molecule to begin to understand how the experience of color is created.

But go ahead kiss up to your betters in public that know no more than you about color.

 

[fromderinside]

On cue. untermenssche drops another gastral fart.

Bottom line chants from chanting trainee.

Wahoo.

Nothing new.

It's not polite to burp by post.