Objective/Subjective

[untermensche]

Now you are reduced to just spewing nonsense.

You believe in miracles.

You are no scientist. It's unbelievable you ever studied perception when you don't have a clue what is going on.

You think the hand that turns of the blue light does it by giving information about blue to the bulb.

You think sound is carried on vibrating air. When sound like color is only an experience.

Bats make a "visual" experience from vibrating air. It does not carry information about sound or of the insects flying in the cave. It causes brains to create the experience of sounds and of insects flying in the cave.

 

[steve_bank]

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.

Strange, you are now appearing to echo what we have been telling you all along, which you resisted. The fact that perception is biological and comical. Nothing to be gleaned philosophically.

As a few others do you attempt to answer scientific questions with metaphysics. That invariably leads to enless circular arguments and issue with definitins.

Ask me what blue is and I will say an internationally accepted portion of the EM spectrum. Ask a poet and you will get a poetic answer. Ask a scientifically ignorant philosopher and you get incoherent metaphysics.

The perception of color philosophically and poetically is anything you interpret it to be. Nothing wrong with that, but you can't say scince is not knowledge of perceptions.

Asking as you do what is colr is the smae as asking what is pain?

Why does apin feel bad and sex feel good? How do you know that what I experience as pain is the same as your experience of pain?

 

[fromderinside]

Now you are reaching dew depths with ad hominem piled upon ad hominem. You claim one thing you nothing about to another.

I'll use just one example of your lack of basis for making attacks.

Bats make a "visual" experience from vibrating air. It does not carry information about sound or of the insects flying in the cave. It causes brains to create the experience of sounds and of insects flying in the cave.

Bats process signals from bat calls into spatial not visual representations based on reflected signal return time differences.

Actually my dissertation, almost completely unreadable, was measuring how humans form auditory space from the movement of sound emitting speakers in an anechoic environment. DISCRIMINATION IN AUDITORY SPACE: STATIC AND DYNAMIC FUNCTION.

 

[steve_bank]

UM is usg human vision metaphor for bat perception, no problem with that.

Two questions are being debated conflated as one.

The fact that all perceptions human or otherwise is all based in a physical brain. The other is an attempted philosophical description of perceptions without invoking science.

How does modern psychology describe perceptions and consciousness?

UM: What is a rock?
Me: A collection of ataomic particles that dtermine physical properties.
UM: That is the start of perception.

From a psychological perspective I agree with the above, if we are talking psychology and subjective perceptions. Perception of a rock includes science but that is not all of it. My analogy would be computer software vs software.

 

[untermensche]

Strange, you are now appearing to echo what we have been telling you all along, which you resisted.

Absolute nonsense.

What the religious nuts have been trying to say is there is information about color in waves of energy.

There is no information about color in it. Color is not a property of objects or of energy.

It is something evolved brains create when nitrogen atoms move in a specific array.

 

[untermensche]

Now you are reaching dew depths with ad hominem piled upon ad hominem.

Stupid is what stupid does.

Bats process signals from bat calls into spatial not visual representations based on reflected signal return time differences.

They catch flying insects in caves with no energy we call "light" in them. They can experience "objects" in space so of course that have an understanding of the space (a spatial experience) they hunt within.

Bats have a very precise visual experience that allows them to catch insects in flight without running into other bats.

You make one ridiculous claim after another.

Stupid is what stupid does.

 

[steve_bank]

Strange, you are now appearing to echo what we have been telling you all along, which you resisted.

Absolute nonsense.

What the religious nuts have been trying to say is there is information about color in waves of energy.

There is no information about color in it. Color is not a property of objects or of energy.

It is something evolved brains create when nitrogen atoms move in a specific array.

Energy does not exist independently of matter. Scientifically energy is the capacity to do work, wokrrk is force times distance. Textbook definitions.

Water in a lake om a mountain has gravitational potential energy. The lake water running downhill can doo work turning a turbine to generate electricity.

In science and engineering as well, a 'wave' is any measured phenomena that is periodic. An acoitic sound wave of a piano note is periodic, amplitude varies with time.

Light and electromagnetic radiation in general is called waves because it propagates as a measurable sinusoidal periodic change in amplitude. EM radiation is said to have energy because it can do work. Sunlight hitting an object can raise temperature, that is work. EM radiation hitting a solar cell can cause elections to flow, electricity. That too is work.
EM radiation has energy which can do work on the cells in the retina causing neural sigbals to flow, work.

EM radiation interacts with cells in the retina doing work to create neural signals that propagate to the brain.

This is all basic textbook undergrad science, if you want to dispute the above then you are disputing long established practcial science. The science used to create your computer.

I think I see your problem. Color is a definition. In engineering if somebody says red light it means a spectrum cantered at around a wavelength of around 6328 nanometers. Light has frequencies just as audio acoustic waves do.

Tags like blue, green, and red are arbitrary words assigned by convention to specific frequencies of light. That os all there is to it.

The word rock to describe an object is an arbitrary convention of language. Same with colors. Scientifically l a rock and light have measurable properties. The words themselves have no priderites.

Back around the 1930s a group called General Semantics came up with a saying, 'the map is not the countryside'. Over time people take the word itself to be reality much as taking a map to actually be the countryside.

 

[untermensche]

Strange, you are now appearing to echo what we have been telling you all along, which you resisted.

Absolute nonsense.

What the religious nuts have been trying to say is there is information about color in waves of energy.

There is no information about color in it. Color is not a property of objects or of energy.

It is something evolved brains create when nitrogen atoms move in a specific array.

Energy does not exist independently of matter. Scientifically energy is the capacity to do work, wokrrk is force times distance. Textbook definitions.

Yes. Energy does work. That is a good start.

EM radiation interacts with cells in the retina doing work to create neural signals that propagate to the brain.

NO.

The energy does not create a signal. It does work to a molecule and the movement of a nitrogen atom on the molecule initiates the signal.

There is no possible way for the nervous system to know why the nitrogen atom moved or what caused it to move.

All the nervous system knows is whether the nitrogen moved.

Color is not a property of the energy or of objects in the world.

It is an experience that brains create in response to specific arrays of the movement of nitrogen atoms.

 

[steve_bank]

Energy does not exist independently of matter. Scientifically energy is the capacity to do work, wokrrk is force times distance. Textbook definitions.

Yes. Energy does work. That is a good start.

EM radiation interacts with cells in the retina doing work to create neural signals that propagate to the brain.

NO.

The energy does not create a signal. It does work to a molecule and the movement of a nitrogen atom on the molecule initiates the signal.

There is no possible way for the nervous system to know why the nitrogen atom moved or what caused it to move.

All the nervous system knows is whether the nitrogen moved.

Color is not a property of the energy or of objects in the world.

It is an experience that brains create in response to specific arrays of the movement of nitrogen atoms.

??? Rods and cones, the cells in the retina are wavelength sensitive. In QM when the bandgap energy of the atom or molecule equals the bandgap energy in the photons absorption occurs , energy is transferred to the cells in the retina.
You do not understand the principles of energy and work, IOW Laws Of Thermodynamics. For a change in state to occur in the eye cells energy has to change. That energy comes from the radiation. Breaking bonds requires energy. No change in state of any type of system can occur without a net loss of energy in the transfer, the prohibition against perpetual motion. Entropy rules transfer of energy from one source to a system.

Do you understand that radio signals and visible light are the same phenomena differing only in frequency?

You get hot in the sun because energy is transferred from the sun's fusion process to radiation and from radiation to your body. A rise in temperature of your body represents a rise in energy. Urinating warm urine represents a net loss in energy.

Energy in Joules is the capacity to do work in Joules. Changing the state of a cell takes energy. The energy comes fro the light source to the light to your retina. A causal chain involving work and energy, thermodynamics 101.

 

[untermensche]

??? Rods and cones, the cells in the retina are wavelength sensitive.

They are not.

A molecule inside them is.

The cell has mechanisms that respond to the movement of a nitrogen atom on a retinal molecule.

The cell has no way to know why the nitrogen atom moved or what caused it to move. The movement occurs because the molecule stabilizes after the energy strikes it. The movement of a nitrogen atom on a retinal molecule has no information about what caused the molecule to stabilize. It is not something that has a relationship to the energy that strikes the molecule. The overall stabilization is related to EM properties of the molecule.

Try to stick to the facts of what is actually happening.

 

[fromderinside]

Nitrogen won't move without using energy.

 

[untermensche]

Nitrogen won't move without using energy.

I know you never took one class of organic chemistry but try to understand.

The energy momentarily breaks one double bond. The energy is related to the breaking of the bond.

The molecule instantly stabilizes by rotating around the bond. Then the double bond reforms. The stabilization is not related to the energy. It is related to the overall EM properties inherent to the molecule.

The movement of the nitrogen atom is just a tiny part of the overall stabilization and is not related to the energy at all.

The nervous system cannot get any information about the energy simply by responding to the movement of a nitrogen atom.

 

[steve_bank]

Causality. Atoms can not change with out a cause. The cause is absorption of photons. A chnage takes energy. Photons supply the enrgy.

If you wnat to argue that then yiu are debating fundamental applied theory. I worked in electro-optics and wroked with photo detectors.

The brain discriminates between viisible wavelengths in conjunction with the retina. In a sense the brain knows what 'blue' is compared to oter colors.

The word blue is something we learn as kids to associate with a certain color.

This unavoidably leads to semantics. To say the eye knows what blue is becomes a manner of speaking based in science.

Semantics is saying rods and cones do not detect, the molecules do. The physical theory trumps semantics. When the bandgap energy of a photon(an expression of wavelength) equals the bandgap energy of a material absorption occurs.

In a solar photoelectric cell absorption of photons translates to electrons. Photon absorption adds energy to the atoms in the material.

 

[fromderinside]

The nervous system cannot get any information about the energy simply by responding to the movement of a nitrogen atom.

What steve_bank wrote.

 

[untermensche]

Causality. Atoms can not change with out a cause. The cause is absorption of photons. A chnage takes energy. Photons supply the enrgy.

First of all atoms are in constant flux. They are never static. "Absorption of photons" is a crude abstraction. Not a specific description of what is going on.

As to color. The energy, all the energy of the so-called visual spectrum, causes one bond to momentarily break on a retinal molecule.

That is all it does. It does that and is gone. It has been converted to molecular energy. And when the molecule stabilizes some other amount of energy is released.

The molecule does not stabilize because the energy causes it to stabilize. It stabilizes based on the EM properties inherent to the molecule once it has the freedom to rotate around a temporarily broken bond. Molecules cannot rotate around double bonds. To rotate one bond must be broken.

The reason the atom moves is because the molecule stabilizes. The energy is far removed from the movement of nitrogen, it does not directly cause the movement of nitrogen, is lost when it breaks a bond on the molecule, and nothing in the cell can know why the nitrogen atom moved.

If you wnat to argue that then yiu are debating fundamental applied theory.

You're deluded.

You are claiming the movement of the nitrogen atom can somehow tell the cell about what caused one bond to momentarily break.

Your claims are miracles.

I worked in electro-optics and wroked with photo detectors.

And you don't have a clue how cells work or what is possible for a cell to glean from the movement of a nitrogen atom.

Detectors detect what humans design them to detect. They do not experience anything. They do not detect color. They detect energy.

The word blue is something we learn as kids to associate with a certain color.

It is a label we associate with an experience. And if you can't experience blue there is no possible way for you to know what it is.

Because color is an experience and nothing else.

 

[untermensche]

What steve_bank wrote.

I'm tired of mocking you.

Since you clearly have no ideas of your own I have to question what you are doing here.

 

[steve_bank]

Quantum mechanics crude? You must be a few thousand years ahead of the rest of us. The quantized theory of light is tye basis of a large patof applied science including your computer and the Internet. That is what you are disputing.

By all means elaborate on how light interacts with matter. You might review Einstein's paper on the Photoelectric Effect, it got him a Nobel. He experimentally demonstrated that light is quantized and interacts with matter in a quantized manner. The quntization is called photons. In a photo receptor the photon is absorbed increasing the energy of a quantized atom. A machanistic view would be to say when the frequency or vibration of the photon equals a resonance of tye atom the photon is absorbed.

No exceptions to the Laws Of Thermodynamics have been found regarding energy. That EM radiation can raise the temperature of an object demonstrates EM radiation carries energy.

We do nor experience blue, we experience a wavelength of electromagnetic radiation that we label blue.

 

[untermensche]

Quantum mechanics crude? You must be a few thousand years ahead of the rest of us. The quantized theory of light is tye basis of a large patof applied science including your computer and the Internet. That is what you are disputing.

No. Your claims are crude miracles.

"Absorption of photons" is crudeness to describe what is happening when energy enters the eye in terms of color.

Specifically the energy is causing retinal molecules to transform from cis to trans because the energy momentarily breaks one bond of a double bond and the molecule stabilizes.

By all means elaborate on how light interacts with matter.

Strawman.

Tell me how a cell knows what moved the nitrogen.

You might review Einstein's paper on the Photoelectric Effect, it got him a Nobel.

Meaningless strawman after meaningless strawman.

Tell me how the Photoelectric effect allows the cell to know how the nitrogen moved and what moved it.

Because that is all the cell is responding to. The movement of a nitrogen atom.

You don't understand how cells work or what specifically is happening.

 

[skepticalbip]

EM radiation carries energy.

Indeed... But I would say that EM radiation is energy rather than carrying energy. The energy of a photon is expressed as E=hf (the Planck-Einstein relation).

Not sure why you keep trying to correct Unter since he seems incapable of understanding anything outside his woo vision of the world.

 

[untermensche]

EM radiation carries energy.

Indeed... But I would say that EM radiation is energy rather than carrying energy. The energy of a photon is expressed as E=hf (the Planck-Einstein relation).

Not sure why you keep trying to correct Unter since he seems incapable of understanding anything outside his woo vision of the world.

I understand this.

People that think energy carries information about color or that objects have color as a property don't have a clue.

Since you think you know so much tell me specifically how the cell knows what caused the nitrogen atom to move and knows any feature of the energy that merely broke a bond?

Put up or shut up.