The color of color

[Royce]

Color, like beauty, is intrinsic. IMO

The usual reductionist thinking is that color is assigned by our minds according to the frequency of the light sensed. Light does not contain or carry the property or value of color but rather has frequency, wavelength or energy level that we perceive and as the value of color to it. I, myself have long thought this and thought the same about sound. I was wrong. Having thought about this for some time I have come to the conclusion that color, sound and beauty are intrinsic and perceived as those values rather than assigned those values by our minds. Following are the reasons that I have changed my position and it has to do with information more than perception.
Light, photons are generated, emitted by bodies, in quantum.
The energy level of the quantum of light is determined by the energy level of the emitting body. This energy leveldetermines the frequency or wavelength of the light, photon, quantum. This wave length is information about the radiating body that we can and do perceive as color. If the light is reflected off of another body, the light then is altered. Its characteristic wavelength and intensity is changed by the reflecting body unless it is a perfect reflector or mirror. This is information about the reflecting body.
The medium through which the light travels may also change its characteristics and this is information about the medium also.

With our eyes and instruments we can detect these characteristics and deduce which characteristics are due to which process or body.
Light (and sound) of different frequencies or wavelenghts or energy levels have different properties of reflection, penetration etc. All of this is a function of its wavelength which is intrinsic to the light. We call these different characteristics color. Color is generated or radiated outside of us and comes to us with this information we call colors as an intrinsic characteristic. We may assign the name of the color and we may all perceive each color differently but it is still a perception of a characteristic of the light entering our eyes.

Life is an opportunist. It takes advantage of whatever is at hand. It uses it's environment any and every way it can. Vertually every form of life on earth uses and responds to light in some way. Sight is a sense that was developed by life to gather information about its surroundings using light. Life did not invent light nor did it invent color but evolved to use light and its characteristic colors to gather information about its environment.

Again, we, life, do not invent or assign color but percieve color as an intrinsic characteristic of the light we sense and this color is information contained or carried by that light that is external to us.
I welcome any and all thoughts, ideas, and/or arguments for or against.

[Kal-Elvis]

"Having thought about this for some time I have come to the conclusion that color, sound and beauty are intrinsic and perceived as those values rather than assigned those values by our minds."

I don't understand your distinction between perceiving a value and the brain assigning a value. After all, even sensory information is processed by the brain.

I would also disagree with the lumping of beauty in with the likes of color and sound. Color and sound are sensory information; beauty is an intellectual construct like justice or truth.

"Light (and sound) of different frequencies or wavelenghts or energy levels have different properties of reflection, penetration etc. All of this is a function of its wavelength which is intrinsic to the light. We call these different characteristics color. Color is generated or radiated outside of us and comes to us with this information we call colors as an intrinsic characteristic."

This seems to be the crux of your argument, and I disagree with the distinction made. You seem to say that the reductionist view is that color is the mind's interpretation of wavelength, a characteristic among others of light. Yet, you say that we call these characteristics color, and that color is a characteristic of light. "We call these characteristics color," indicates that the mind's interpretation is happening, that the mind is interpreting wavelength.

[Royce]

The distinction is that color exists as an intrinsic characteristic of light, rather than our simply sensing the various frequencies of light and assigning a color value to that light that we sense. Does color exist or is it only a function of our brains, an assigned perception?
I am saying that color is intrinsic. It is external to us and is information carried by the light that we sense. The property of light that carries this information is wavelength. we measure it as frequency; but, it is color that we are actually measuring and perceiving.

I say that our senses and perceptions are passive. We receive via our senses information of our environment and this information is perceived and interpreted in our minds or by our brains as received.
Our brains do not assign values like color or tone, intensity or loudness. This information is what we are sensing not what we are making up in our own minds.
Again is color intrinsic, does it exist or is color merely a perception, a subjective property of our mind/brain?

As far a beauty is concerned, I argued some months ago here that beauty is intrinsic in the thread "VALUE THEORY, AH?" One of the questions concerned color. I was not able to address it at that time.
This post is partially in response to that question and partially in response to the various and numerous materialist and reductionists vs non-materialist threads. It is also to refute and correct my own posts on this subject including sound i.e. does a tree falling in the woulds make any sound if no one is there to hear it? I said no. Now I say yes, the information is still there whether there is anyone or anything there to hear it or not. The same thinking applies to light, color and beauty. I know others will disagree; but, I think now that I can better support this position after having thought about it for a while.

[selfAdjoint]

I believe the input side of color perception is well understood. The ambient visible radiation is sampled for intensity at three narrow, fixed frequency bands - this is done in the cones of our retinas - and the band-tagged intensity signal passed to the visual cortex at the back of the brain. It is from these band specific intensities (along with other non frequency specific data) that our color experiences are generated, and that happens in the brain. Of course we don't know how the color sensation - or qualia if you prefer - is generated, yet. But research is proceding.

[Royce]

Okay, SA, this is understood. The question is why should life in general and humans in specific evolve the means to sense these frequencies if not to gather information that is already present in this case color in the form of frequency of light or if you prefer wavelength? Why does life use color with such enthusiasm and abundance unless color itself is intrinsic and available at least here on earth. Again life did not invent or create color. Our, life's senses are passive, receiving only what is available. Yet life also uses color actively as in bioluminosity and active skin coloration. This, I think, is adoption and opportunism using properties already present and intrinsic, not generating stimuli for subjective color perception. I agree that it amounts to the same thing in the end but is color intrinsic in nature or purely subjective?

[Eh]

Actually, "color" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the frequency of light at all. That's because the brain never deals directly with the light being percieved. When light strikes the retina, the data is converted into an electric signal and sent to the brain. This signal is then processed in the visual cortex where the final image ends up. As such, you don't need eyes to see colors. Stimulating the brain directly will produce vivid colors, and no outside light is required.

In that sense, we can see that color is most certainly not an intrinsic property of the light itself.

[Royce]

Stimulating the brain to see colors only proves what we already know, the brain is wired to perceive colors whether the stimulation comes from the optic nerve or an electric probe. There is only one reason for this and that is because our eyes have the ability to detect and discern color in the light that they pick up from the outside world.

Tell how and why our brains are wire to perceive that which does not exist; how and why our eyes, and those of countless other life forms on earth, evolved to detect and discern that which does not exist.
If color is not intrinsic, not information or intelligence contained in or carried by the light reaching our eyes, if color does not exist objectively, physically but is only a subjective perception of our minds then how and why did life evolved to detect and discern subjective perception?
How and why do plants like roses and other flowers which do no have a mind or perception have and use color a subjective assigned perception? How do insects and fish as well as simpler animals detect and use color? They do not have minds and only minimal brains, are not conscious according to most and only respond instinctively. How do they respond to a subjective perception which is beyond their abilities? Why is there such a thing as bio florescence?

[selfAdjoint]

Life evolved so as to respond to elecrochemical signals from light sensitive cells. Initially just a signal this side is lighter, that side is darker, but a big, big advantage to an organism when all the other organisms couldn't tell light from dark.

So it evolved, not according to any plan, but according to the momentary advantages that could be had, and eventually we got to eyes (about seven different basic designs of eyes), and mammal vision, and primate vision, and human vision, and our sensation of the frequency spectrum comes to us as color. It's still a bunch of electrochemical signals coming in, being processed into other patterns of neurochemical signals, and so on. Just how these bits of neurochemistry generate RED is unknown, but it's not a category problem, it's just a complicated contingency.

[Royce]

My point is that life responded to take advantage of what was already present. To life frequency is color. Life also uses color even if it does not have eyes to see it or a brain to perceive it.
With or without a plan, life is opportunistic and uses whatever is available. It does not invent or create it's environment but response to it. I do not see how life could evolve to see color unless it was already present and intrinsic to it's, life's surroundings.
Physically different colors have different characteristics and properties such as transmission, reflection and refraction. Color is information and carried as the frequency or wavelength of the light or photons. We seem to be confusing the signal or information with the medium of transmission just as the frequency of the carrier of a radio wave is not as important as the information carried by the modulation of the radio wave. However, the carrier is essential for the transmission to take place at all. Color is the important information carried by light. We measure and discern the color by measuring or discerning the frequency of the light. I would be just as easy if not easier to use colored filters or prisms to measure the color of the light without ever determining the frequency.

[Nereid]

Just to mention a recent report I read - apparently there is some observational data to support the hypothesis that colour vision evolved in humans at the expense of the sense of smell (colour vision is rare among mammals, and most mammals have a considerably more sensitive sense of smell than homo sap's). It's as if the relevant constructor kit for the brain has pieces that can be used for one or other sense, but not both.

If a person has defective vision from birth - cones that are non-functional, for example, or only rods plus one type of cone - can they perceive colour? What if such a person also had synesthesia?

[Eh]

Originally posted by Royce
Stimulating the brain to see colors only proves what we already know, the brain is wired to perceive colors whether the stimulation comes from the optic nerve or an electric probe. There is only one reason for this and that is because our eyes have the ability to detect and discern color in the light that they pick up from the outside world.
But that shows color is not an actual property of the light itself. Otherwise, there would be no color in the absence of light - which is clearly not the case.
Tell how and why our brains are wire to perceive that which does not exist; how and why our eyes, and those of countless other life forms on earth, evolved to detect and discern that which does not exist.
No one says color does not exist. It is merely not a property of light itself. Why the ability to perceive different colors evolved should be obvious. Vision is probably the most important survival tool we have. Without it, we are blind and vulnerable. You can be mystified by the experience of color all you want, but it is still certain that color is not a property of photons.

[Royce]

Originally posted by Eh
But that shows color is not an actual property of the light itself. Otherwise, there would be no color in the absence of light - which is clearly not the case.

What it shows is that the brain can be stimulated into perceiving color just as it can be stimulated to perceive oder or other sensations and memories as well as moving muscles. It has nothing to do with the subject at hand. We agree that the frequency of the light is detected and percieved as color in the brain of humans. That frequency is a property of the light entering our eyes and determined by a number of different things.

Scientist by studing light can determine the temperature of the emitting body, its chemical composition and the chemical composition of the medium through which the light passed. Science can also get an indication of the relative speed of the emitting body all by studying the frequency (color) of the light.

This is all information that is carried by the light and is intrinsic to that light. Our eyes are no different from the instruments of the scientists. Our eyes detect the intrinsic frequency (color) of the light and send this information to the brain where it is perceived to be what it in fact is, color.


No one says color does not exist. It is merely not a property of light itself. Why the ability to perceive different colors evolved should be obvious. Vision is probably the most important survival tool we have. Without it, we are blind and vulnerable. You can be mystified by the experience of color all you want, but it is still certain that color is not a property of photons.

If, as you and others say, color is not a propery of light but is only a perception within our minds, then color is subjective and thus does not exist in the objective material realm but in the mental subjective realm. It has then no physical reality.

You seem to be concerned about human perception only. What about the rest of life that uses and responds to color including life that has no central nervous system to perceive of anything. Where and how could it develope color without having any means of perceiving it unless color is a property of light, intrinsic or not, and a property of its environment?

It is certain, however, that color is determined by the frequency of photons and that is certainly an intrinsic propery of photons. The frequency of photons is determined by its intrinsic energy. The more energy a photon has the highter the frequency. The less energy the lower the frequency. I'm sure that you know this. All of this, however, is why I say color is intrinsic, because of the physics involved and that fact that life evolved to passively detect this physical value of light already present in its environment. I don't see how it could be any different. Life responds to it's physical enviroment. It does not assign values to it. We humans can and do assign values to vertually everything but that is a human trait and not necessarily a common trait of all of life on earth.

[Eh]

Originally posted by Royce
What it shows is that the brain can be stimulated into perceiving color just as it can be stimulated to perceive oder or other sensations and memories as well as moving muscles. It has nothing to do with the subject at hand. We agree that the frequency of the light is detected and percieved as color in the brain of humans. That frequency is a property of the light entering our eyes and determined by a number of different things.
No, the brain does not detect the frequency of light directly at all. By the time the image is processed (where color is perceived) the brain is dealing with information running through the visual cortex. The light is long gone, and doesn't even make it past the retina.
Scientist by studing light can determine the temperature of the emitting body, its chemical composition and the chemical composition of the medium through which the light passed. Science can also get an indication of the relative speed of the emitting body all by studying the frequency (color) of the light.
So? We already know there is a correlation between the frequency of light and perceived color, but there is no direct perception of that light. The light hits the retina and is gone. The data (spatial and frequencies) in the retina is then converted into an electrical signal and sent over to the brain for processing. As I said, the important thing here is that by the time color is perceieved, the light that hit the retina is long gone. Color cannot be a property of photons because they have nothing directly to do with the experience of it.
This is all information that is carried by the light and is intrinsic to that light. Our eyes are no different from the instruments of the scientists. Our eyes detect the intrinsic frequency (color) of the light and send this information to the brain where it is perceived to be what it in fact is, color.
As I said, the original light is gone. The experience of "color" has nothing directly to do with the light that strikes the retina.

What is real, is the frequency of the light and the retinal spatial pattern.
If, as you and others say, color is not a propery of light but is only a perception within our minds, then color is subjective and thus does not exist in the objective material realm but in the mental subjective realm. It has then no physical reality.
This is the same debate about all qualia in general. One approach argues that the physical brain state involved in the perception is equivalent to the experience itself. Others claim the experience is an emergent property of the brain state. But at any rate, that argument is irrelevant. The facts clearly show that color only exists in the mind, regardless of how one wants to explain conscious experiences.
You seem to be concerned about human perception only. What about the rest of life that uses and responds to color including life that has no central nervous system to perceive of anything.
They respond to light, not color. Plants will respond to light of various frequncies, but with no brain they do not perceive color. It's that simple.
Where and how could it develope color without having any means of perceiving it unless color is a property of light, intrinsic or not, and a property of its environment?
We've already established that light itself does not have color, so the question of how qualia works or evolved in the first place is not the point.
It is certain, however, that color is determined by the frequency of photons and that is certainly an intrinsic propery of photons.
That isn't even an intelligent position to hold. The fact that we can experience color without any light striking the retina demonstrates that it exists independently of light. As such, there is no reason at all to think that photons have "color" as a property. The same applies to all qualia. For example, the experience of smell can be generated without there actually being a nearby object to smell.

Suggesting color is a property of photons is just as silly as suggesting that particles posses "smell" as a real property.

[Twinbee]

It takes a light wavelength of 700 nanometres for us to see the colour red. Is there any evidence that other 'tri-color capable' mammals see a vastly different hue (say cyan) at 700 nm?

If it can see colour at all, it wouldn't surprise me if a fish sees the ocean very differently. It could be seeing red for all I know, and there's no way to ever find out for sure. I guess there's even the chance that other creatures could be experiencing new colours we've never seen before!

[Royce]

Well just call me silly then. Esters possess odor or have the property of oder as do phermones etc. Wamt to discuss oder as being intrinsic, i.e. have physical properties which are percieved as odors?
Same arguments apply.

[Eh]

Originally posted by Royce
Well just call me silly then. Esters possess odor or have the property of oder as do phermones etc. Wamt to discuss oder as being intrinsic, i.e. have physical properties which are percieved as odors?
Same arguments apply.
Yes, the same arguments apply. Like color, it can be demonstrated that other smell can be generated without any actual smelly object being present. This shows beyond a reasonable dount that it is all in the brain.

[Royce]

I'm going to try a different slant strictly from our human view.
We are mental beings. Everything we know and do starts in the mind/brain. our only contact with the physical world in which we live is through our senses, sight, sound, smell, taste and touch.
All the information that we receive from the world is through those senses and they are all passive. That is to say that they are receptors only not transmitters.

Assuming that the objective, physical world actually exists and that our senses give us a more or less real and accurate model of the real world then what our senses do is receive information about this world. This information is not perceptions nor mental constructs or fabrications of the world but an accurate model of the world in which we live, within the limits of our senses and our instruments.

This information is carried to us via light, chemicals etc. This information must be real and exist outside and independent of ourselves. The most obvious ways that this happens is through sight, sound and smell. One of the forms of information is color a property of light associated with wavelength. Light has other properties like intensity, purity that also give us information. This is intrinsic to the light our eyes receive or else it is an illusion of perception originating in our brains such as dreams or hallucinations. The same is true of sound and smell.

It either is information and thus intrinsic or it is illusion and is not information but garbage. Of course if one is an idealist none of this true as the world is only a mental construct anyway and the only reality is within the mind. So all of you idealist can just ignore all of this just as you ignore all of reality. If one i9s a materialist then all of this has to be true or information theory and all of science it bunk and illusion. If one is someone like me then your just confused about everything and must ponder endlessly about everthing and wonder what the hell this is all about.

[Eh]

No need to post a lot of text, just deal with the facts. As I pointed out, it is a fact that qualia like color exist without light hitting the retina at all. This demonstrates beyond a doubt that the experience of color does not involve light directly at all. You have not provided an answer to this fact, and until you do you have no argument.

[Royce]

Eh, I have answered that claim three times in three different posts.
I even gave other examples of color perception without light being present.
Very simply put our eyes can and do detect color.
Our retina converts the light into electrochemical nerve impulses.
Our optic nerves carry this encoded information to our visual cortex where they are perceives as visual colored scenes, a perception model of the real world.
Our brains are wired to convert electrochemical nerve impulses into visual perception.
If we stimulate the visual cortex with an electric probe we are simpling substituting and artificial signal for a real signal and our brain has no choice but to "see" that input as a visual perception, color. It is the same way for dreams mental images and hallucinations whatever their cause.
Stimulating the brain only proves that the brain can do what it evolved to do. Given the proper signal or stimuli in the proper place simulates a signal input from the area or sense connected to that area of the brain. How else would you expect it to work?
If we couldn't stimulate the brain into such perception it would prove that our understanding of the how the brain works is all wrong.
If we were blind or color blind and stimulated the brain into seeing color then we would again have a problem with our theories.
None of this has anything to do with whether color is intrinsic or assigned.
I say simply that color is intrinsic, external and informational, that is a property of the light entering our eyes that eventually becomes a perceived model of reality in our minds.
Our minds do not create the color nor does it perform a paint by number routine creating a colored picture in our minds; but, replicates and models what our eyes see.

[Eh]

Originally posted by Royce
Eh, I have answered that claim three times in three different posts.
I even gave other examples of color perception without light being present.
But you haven't addressed that this fact demonstrates that the perception of color has nothing directly to do with light itself. As such, your claim that photons have color as a real property has no substance.
If we stimulate the visual cortex with an electric probe we are simpling substituting and artificial signal for a real signal and our brain has no choice but to "see" that input as a visual perception, color. It is the same way for dreams mental images and hallucinations whatever their cause.
Here is the crucial part you've missed: The signal the reaches the brain is not the light the strikes the retina! The light ends in the retina. What ends up in the brain to be processed is something else, and from that we can see color and the frequency of light are not the same thing. Address that point.
Stimulating the brain only proves that the brain can do what it evolved to do. Given the proper signal or stimuli in the proper place simulates a signal input from the area or sense connected to that area of the brain. How else would you expect it to work?
If we couldn't stimulate the brain into such perception it would prove that our understanding of the how the brain works is all wrong.
If we were blind or color blind and stimulated the brain into seeing color then we would again have a problem with our theories.
None of this has anything to do with whether color is intrinsic or assigned.
It has everything to do with it, because it clearly demonstrates the light has nothing directly to do with the perception of color. If you agree on that point, then I don't see any basis for claiming color exists outside the mind. You cannot argue that light causes color, because as I said numerous times, the light ends in the retina. The perception happens in the visual cortex (primarily)at which point the original photons no longer even exist. That is the point you are not addressing.
I say simply that color is intrinsic, external and informational, that is a property of the light entering our eyes that eventually becomes a perceived model of reality in our minds.
Our minds do not create the color nor does it perform a paint by number routine creating a colored picture in our minds; but, replicates and models what our eyes see.
Again, you're not addressing the fact that the brain never interacts with the light. The colorful images we percieve occur through processes that are a result of light hitting the retina, but light hitting the retina is not the same as the processes going on in the brain. Light has nothing to do with one.

[Royce]

The retina consists of two structures that sense light.
Rods sense the brightness of light and are more sensitive.
Cones sense the color of light striking the retina and are less sensitive than rods.
Different parts of the cones are stimulated by different wavelengths, color, of light.
As I understand it the longer wavelengths (reds) are detected and activate the sensor cells at the tip of the cones and send their impulses to different areas of the visual cortex associated with perceiving RED.
The shorter wavelengths, yellow, green etc. penetrate the retina further and stimulate and activate the sensors in the middle associated with those colors and via the optic nerve then stimulate the visual cortex associated with those colors,YELLOW and GREEN.
The shortest wavelengths, blue and violet colors, penetrate the retina the deepest and stimulate the cells near or at the base of the cones. Those cells send their impulses via the optic nerve to the area in the visual cortex associated with BLUE and VIOLET.
The cells on the cones on the retina are activated according the the wavelength of the light striking the retina and this information is sent to the visual cortex where it is processed depending on which area is activated by the impulse from the which sensors are activated by which color enters the eye and strikes the retina.
Thus the area, individual cells, that is activated or receive the nerve pulse is determined by which wavelength struck which area of the cones.
That is how we see color.
The color is a property of the light entering the eye and striking the retina.
If you want more detail and more precision than that, look it up yourself.

[Eh]

Everything you've posted seems correct enough, right up until the end. I don't know if there is some communication problem here, but let's try this again.

Everything goes well until this post:

The color is a property of the light entering the eye and striking the retina.
This is still the point you aren't getting. The light that strikes the retina does not exist by the time the image is processed in the visual cortex. When light strikes the surface of the retina, it cease to exist. The data in the cells of the retina is converted into an electric singnal and sent on to the brain. At this point, the light (which you claim has the property of color) has ceased to exist and so cannot have anything to do with the perception of color.

Clear now?

[Royce]

Originally posted by Eh

This is still the point you aren't getting. The light that strikes the retina does not exist by the time the image is processed in the visual cortex. When light strikes the surface of the retina, it cease to exist. The data in the cells of the retina is converted into an electric singnal and sent on to the brain. At this point, the light (which you claim has the property of color) has ceased to exist and so cannot have anything to do with the perception of color.


No the light that strikes the retina no longer exists. It is absorbed by the sense cells within the retina; however, the information carried by the light is also absorbed, color being part of that information, is, in essence, encoded onto the nerve impulses and carried to the brain for processing and perceiving. It is all about information, Eh. If information does not get to the brain to be processed then there is no intelligent, reality model, perception possible. If there is no informationfrom the objective, physical world getting to the brain to form these mental perceptions then what is the purpose of our senses?

The exact method of receiving and encoding then transfence to the brain for processing is not important. I'm no expert. The point is that information is gathered by our senses and processed in our brains so that we can be mentally aware and conscious of our surrounding and interact with it. Color is one type or value of information the we some how detect and discern and use to form our mental perception of reality.

[Eh]

Originally posted by Royce
No the light that strikes the retina no longer exists. It is absorbed by the sense cells within the retina; however, the information carried by the light is also absorbed, color being part of that information, is, in essence, encoded onto the nerve impulses and carried to the brain for processing and perceiving.
Frequency is part of the data, not color. The color aspect only exists when this data is processed in the brain. To clarify, are you are claiming that electrons, as well as photons have the property of color?
It is all about information, Eh. If information does not get to the brain to be processed then there is no intelligent, reality model, perception possible. If there is no informationfrom the objective, physical world getting to the brain to form these mental perceptions then what is the purpose of our senses?
The information carried in the electric signal to the brain contains the light frequency and spatial pattern. It isn't until this data ends up in the visual cortex that we perceive color. As such, there is absolutely no reason to believe color exists as properties of the individual particles.

Again, it's the same as claiming a quark smells bad. Or saying that electrons taste better than photons. Or, well....you get the idea.

[selfAdjoint]

The information that gets passed to the brain is of the form "In this section of the visual field the intensity* of band 1 was I1, of band 3 I2, and of band 3 I3". The retina has already categorized the frequency spectrum available by means of the three types of cones. Everything the brain does to construct color has to be done from the three intensities. So some huge proportion of the information content of the incident radiation is just lost in translation.


* Essentially the number of cones modified ~ number of photons detected.

[Sikz]

So you're saying that colour is intrinsic, a property of light, and not simply a matter of perception? Because wavelength IS colour, the brain percieves that but doesn't create it?

What would you say to the fact that some people are "colourblind", that they do not see colours the same way as everyone else?

An error, I'm sure you would respond- a computer that interprets keyboard presses incorrectly does not negate the existance of the correct keyboard configuration.


The problem with any discussion on this matter is that of seperating a "property" from a "perception". If I percieve a circle on paper, does that circle exist as a "circle", or is the "circle" an idea constructed by my brain while the actual mark on the paper is simply a set of different coloured particles at the same distance from a point?


Hmmm... What about this: Colour is only the visible wavelengths of light, while wavelengths extend beyond that. Is colour only a property of SOME light? If you would argue that we simply can't SEE the colour of the other wavelengths... Colour, by definition, is visual- how can there be a colour we can't see? If you agree that colour is only a property of SOME light, why would that be?

Howabout letters? A letter is a perception, the mark on paper is intrinsic but it is not a "letter" without proper perception. If you make an odd scribble in the dirt it is not a letter, even if some civilization somewhere in the future adopts it as one. Letters are concepts created by man- they are perceptions, and thus we can communicate by making intrinsic marks which are interpreted as letters.

Mathematics is next. Mathematics represents things in the universe, but is it a property of these things? How can it be, when there are things representable in mathematics that do not occur in reality? Mathematics is a way of percieving exterior phenomina but is not a property of those phenomina. We can say 2+1=3 without reference to an exterior object; likewise we can mentally mix the colours red and blue to get purple without reference to an exterior object.

The evidence against your conclusions:

Colours can be dealt with mentally in absence of objects of which that colour might be an intrinsic property. There are people who percieve colour in different ways that we percieve it. There is no proof that ordinary people percieve colours in the same way.


The problem is we are trying to see if colour is objective or subjective using only objective examples... We only have one subjective perspective to draw from, so we cannot compare subjective ideas- and are thus left with only objective. How can we every come out with a result in favour of the subjective based on objective data?

If a tree falls in the forest when no one is around to percieve it, does it make a sound or only make vibrations that WOULD produce sound if someone was around to hear them?

If a tree falls in the forest when no one is around to percieve it, does it even fall?

If there is a tree with no one around to percieve it, is there a tree?

[Royce]

The point that I am trying to make is that our perception of color is a mental model of the real world, a replication, if you will, of what is really out there. Like a photograph is a model. The color is there in the photo but in reality its just a bunch of chemicals on a piece of paper. Those chemical however are arranged to replicate or symbolize that which the camera saw when the shutter was released.
The camera did not nor did the film make up or invent those colors, shapes or intensities. It modeled them in an intelligent way that so that it represents reality.
Light is the carrier of information, in this case color. Frequency is the modulation of light which is the means that light carries this information. The actual color that we see is determined by the wavelength or frequency band that the light carries, to compare it with a radio signal. The receiver simple receives, demodulates and detects the information carried to it by the radio wave. The receiver, us, does not create or make up what it detects but simply put it in a form that we can use.
We do not make up or create or invent color. The color we see is actually out there in reality and somehow represented in our minds when we perceive it. Our eyes as well as our other senses are limited. We see only a narrow bandwidth. That does not mean that that which we can't see does not exist. If we can't see it we don't call it color but something else like ultraviolet or infrared. Dogs see a much wider band with than we and pit viper "see" in infrared.
Do they make up what they see or do they actually see it? Is it color to them? I don't know.

[Sikz]

Understood... The fact that it is a representation of reality, however, does not indicate objectivity- you have no way of knowing if others "see" colour the same way you do. Any way of percieving in which the colours were differentiated from each other somehow and seemed to naturally flow from one to the other would work as well as the one you use. Other people might not even see "colour" as you understand it- perhaps to them colours appear as some indescribable quality of objects that you would not recognize as colour if you percieved it that way. The same holds true for shapes- any way of percieving shapes in which the laws of geometry hold relative to each other is valid. So what's to say others don't percieve shapes in entirely different ways?

The question is not that of whether perceptions are models of objectively existing things. The question is whether the perceptions are the same. Think about this:

We have a sphere we are attempting to model. How many ways are there to model it that are UTTERLY different? Well, there's a mathematical model, numbers and variables only... There's a geometric model, lines angles and the like.... We have a visual model, a visual representation of a sphere.

Those are just ways WE represent spheres- we could develop other ways if we needed to as well. Now perhaps LIGHT is like that- your perception of light is one kind of model, while another's perception is another model. They both undoubtably stem from an objective thing, namely light of a given wavelength. The models themselves, however, may be different- in fact your own model for "red" may be a different form of model than the one you use for "green".

Just some stuff to think about...

[Royce]

I would and do agree to a point; however, when very young we are taught that the names of the colors. There are also scientific and technical specification that say that this is blue and that is red. We learn as we develop more that there are various shades of blue but this color is true blue etc. Our individual perception probably do vary but that is something that we will never know. This changes nothing as what we sense is coming from the outside I we cannot change that. How our eyes, nerves and brain work and form our perceptions is merely the limitations of our senses and perceptions. Our perceptions change as the inputs change and our brains compensate and interpret the inputs differently for each scene depending on the color combinations we see.
Still it is information received from external sources and is a property of the light striking our eyes not something we made up.
Color is a value and in the way that I am thinking of it it is intrinsic.

[hypnagogue]

Think about information written in a book. There is a pattern of ink on the pages, and we can say this manner of information storage is qualitatively intrinsic to the book itself.

Now imagine someone reading a passage from the book to an audience. The speaker can read it in a virtual infinity of tones, volumes, and so on; or the speaker could communicate it in a manner altogether different, such as using sign language or gesturing. In this case, the speaker is passing on the informational content of the book, but the nature of his communication/representation of that information is nonetheless qualitatively distinct from the nature of the information as it exists in the book. The speaker's voice is not an intrinsic property of the book. Same message (informational content), different messangers.

Think of objectively existing light wavelengths as information codified intrinsically in the book, and color as that that same information as it is distinctly represented by the speaker. Color is the mind's way of 'reading' the information stored intrinsically in the light; it is not an intrinsic property of the light. Same message, different messangers. Just as the speaker can read the book to the audience in a wide array of methods (all of which are not intrinsic to the book itself), the brain could in principle read the wavelength information stored intrinsically in the light in a number of different ways. Wire up a person a little differently, and his perceptions of blue and red will be swapped; wire him radically differently, and he will hear the information stored in light instead of seeing it.

If you accept this statement about the brain's different possible ways of interpretting information stored in light (and I think you do), then what basis do we have for saying that color is an intrinsic property of light?

In the case of the rewired person who hears light, has it been revealed to him that sound too is an intrinsic property of light?

If not, why must it be the case that color as we see it is the correct way of perceiving this intrinsic property of light? Was it just some cosmic fluke that we happened to evolve the 'correct' way of perceiving this intrinsic property of light?

Or does perceiving the supposed 'true' intrinsic property of light through visual perception confer some sort of evolutionary advantage, and if so, what is it? (Why wouldn't a species that perceived light in a sophisticated manner using sounds do just as well?)

If two people see different shades of red for the same wavelength W, is one closer to the 'true' intrinsic color of W than the other? If so, why, and by what means do we determine the 'true' intrinsic color of W?

If not, then how can it be that wavelengths of light have a range of intrinsic colors, and is there any discernable range for these intrinsic colors beyond which we can say that the perceived color is no longer the intrinsic color? If not, then aren't you conceding that all perceived colors are intrinsic properties of all light wavelengths?

[Royce]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
Think about information written in a book. There is a pattern of ink on the pages, and we can say this manner of information storage is qualitatively intrinsic to the book itself.

Now imagine someone reading a passage from the book to an audience. The speaker can read it in a virtual infinity of tones, volumes, and so on; or the speaker could communicate it in a manner altogether different, such as using sign language or gesturing. In this case, the speaker is passing on the informational content of the book, but the nature of his communication/representation of that information is nonetheless qualitatively distinct from the nature of the information as it exists in the book. The speaker's voice is not an intrinsic property of the book. Same message (informational content), different messangers.

No the voice is not intrinsic to the book; however, the information is tranfered to the speaker's voice and becomes an intrinsic property of his voice. This must be so for him/her to communicate the information in the book to us. The method does not matter. Communicating information matters. If it were not intrinsic but perceived then it would not be communication of information.


Think of objectively existing light wavelengths as information codified intrinsically in the book, and color as that that same information as it is distinctly represented by the speaker. Color is the mind's way of 'reading' the information stored intrinsically in the light; it is not an intrinsic property of the light. Same message, different messangers. Just as the speaker can read the book to the audience in a wide array of methods (all of which are not intrinsic to the book itself), the brain could in principle read the wavelength information stored intrinsically in the light in a number of different ways. Wire up a person a little differently, and his perceptions of blue and red will be swapped; wire him radically differently, and he will hear the information stored in light instead of seeing it.

If you accept this statement about the brain's different possible ways of interpretting information stored in light (and I think you do), then what basis do we have for saying that color is an intrinsic property of light?

Color is information of the external objective reality carried by light. How it is perceived is immaterial as it does not originate within the perceiver but external to him/her/. It must be intrinsic to light in order for light to carry information to us that more or less accurately models our external environment. If color or tone or odor were not intrinsic properties of the media, but assigned values of our perceptions, then we would not be receiving information that is modeled from our external environment.


If not, why must it be the case that color as we see it is the correct way of perceiving this intrinsic property of light? Was it just some cosmic fluke that we happened to evolve the 'correct' way of perceiving this intrinsic property of light?

Or does perceiving the supposed 'true' intrinsic property of light through visual perception confer some sort of evolutionary advantage, and if so, what is it? (Why wouldn't a species that perceived light in a sophisticated manner using sounds do just as well?)

It isn't a cosmic fluke but an evolutionary developement that takes advantage of the information of our immediate enviroment that is at hand and intrinsic to the environment and to the media which carries that information. A red rose is perceived as a red rose because the light reflected from rose is colored red. It is intrinsicly red and conveys that information to us through our senses and eventually our perceptions of rose and red which in our minds we understand that the red rose is really red because that is the color of the light reflected from it. I think that it is a distinct survial advantage if we can see that the color of the ring markings of a coral snake red, yellow, black are accurately conveyed to us rather than assigned in our head. We might get confused and think we are perceiving red, black yellow of a king snake.


If two people see different shades of red for the same wavelength W, is one closer to the 'true' intrinsic color of W than the other? If so, why, and by what means do we determine the 'true' intrinsic color of W?

There is know way we could know which was closer to true red because whatever their actual perception was they learned as toddlers that that was red. We determine true red by measuring with instruments or comparing it to a standard of true red. Technically the true color can be determined by mixing it with stardard primary colors and observing or measuring the results.


If not, then how can it be that wavelengths of light have a range of intrinsic colors, and is there any discernible range for these intrinsic colors beyond which we can say that the perceived color is no longer the intrinsic color? If not, then aren't you conceding that all perceived colors are intrinsic properties of all light wavelengths?
The visable spectrum is a continuum within the range of sight of man. We know the spectrum continues beyound the range of our vision. With in our range of vision different wavelengths have different properties and activate different parts of our retina and then different cells in our brains evoking different perceptions within our brain that we were taught to recognize as different colors. We can measure the wavelength of the light and compare it to our learned perception and determine the color of the light. One point is that the different colors have real different characteristics and properties and behave in different ways. This to me indicates that color is a real physical attribute of light and is thus intrinsic.
Shine a beam of white light through a prism and you will see the colors in the white light seperated from one another and they will always be in the same ordered sequence. This is not accomplished by our perceptions but by the physical property of color, wavelength.

[M. Gaspar]

...to PM please.

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Royce
No the voice is not intrinsic to the book; however, the information is tranfered to the speaker's voice and becomes an intrinsic property of his voice. This must be so for him/her to communicate the information in the book to us. The method does not matter. Communicating information matters. If it were not intrinsic but perceived then it would not be communication of information.

Sure it would. Reading a book vs. hearing a speaker are two different methods of perception that nonetheless give us the same informational content. Likewise, perception of color is communication of information about light's wavelength through a means different from directly measuring the physical dimensions of the wavelength. Nonetheless, we receive the same information about light through both means.

Color is information of the external objective reality carried by light. How it is perceived is immaterial as it does not originate within the perceiver but external to him/her/. It must be intrinsic to light in order for light to carry information to us that more or less accurately models our external environment. If color or tone or odor were not intrinsic properties of the media, but assigned values of our perceptions, then we would not be receiving information that is modeled from our external environment.

You are confusing subjective qualities and objective information here. There is no reason to think that the kind of information that embodies a subjective perception is identical to the kind of information that embodies objective physical dimensions, as you are trying to assert. Rather, there is every reason to believe that the brain sets up an isomorphism between the two, so that it always associates light of wavelength X with color of subjective quality Y. In this way, the brain can keep track of informational content of the objective world without ever needing to invoke properties that are actually intrinsic to it.

Isomorphism does not an identity make. To establish an identity you need a much stronger argument, which you haven't been able to present yet. In fact, there is very good reason to think that there is not an exact identity here, but rather that the isomorphism is to some extent an arbitrary construction. It doesn't matter how I read a book to you (eg with my voice or with sign language, etc), as long as I get the information across. Likewise, it doesn't matter how the brain represents light of a certain wavelength (as this color, or this color, or as a certain sound); as long as the brain uses the same perceptual signs for the same physical input, the isomorphism is conserved and we receive reliable information about the objective world. (If I perceived light of wavelength 600nm as this color instead of this color, I still would act just as warily around snakes with bands that reflect 600nm light; in either case, I have to learn that 600nm reflecting snakes are bad news.) The fact that the brain can use different perceptions to represent the same physical stimulus is very strong evidence that the perceptual quality is generated by the brain, as opposed to being an intrinsic property of the stimulus itself.

Example. Suppose I construct an isomorphism on the counting numbers, such that for each number 0-9 I represent it with a letter A-J. Then saying 1 + 1 = 2 has the same informational content as saying B + B = C. Here the information content is the same, but the carriers or messangers of information are different. When you say that our subjective perception of the color red is an intrinsic property of light, it is like saying that the symbol "1" is an intrinsic property of the informational concept "one." But clearly this is not the case; the symbol "1" and the symbol "B" here are both arbitrary constructions used to represent the same informational concept of "one." Analogously, the symbol written as "600 nm" and the perceptual symbol "this color" are both arbitrary constructions used to represent the same informational concept.

[Royce]

Put very simply and succinctly;
Wavelength is color.
Color is intrinsic
we are able to 'see', perceive color because it is intrinsic, a property of our external environment.
Life did not and does not invent or create it's environment but responds to, adapts to and takes advantage of it's environment.
If color was not an intrinsic property of it's environment why would life evolve color vision?
Long before life developed central nervous systems and brains, life used and responded to color.
Unless we believe that a rose is conscious and perceptive enough to assign color to wavelength, a rose is red because it is a red rose.
The color of the rose is intrinsic to the rose and we perceive that color passively not by actively assigning it it's color.

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Royce
Put very simply and succinctly;
Wavelength is color.
Color is intrinsic
we are able to 'see', perceive color because it is intrinsic, a property of our external environment.

This is simply begging the question. You are not making an argument for your position, you are just stating outright that it is true. You are also ignoring all the objections I have previously brought up against your argument. This isn't a very good way to proceed in a discussion.

Life did not and does not invent or create it's environment but responds to, adapts to and takes advantage of it's environment.

This is not inconsistent with saying that perceptual color originates in the brain.

If color was not an intrinsic property of it's environment why would life evolve color vision?

Because it is one of several useful ways in which the brain can represent information from the physical world.

Long before life developed central nervous systems and brains, life used and responded to color.

This is not a problem even if we take the position that color originates in the brain. There is nothing in this statement that logically contradicts that position.

Unless we believe that a rose is conscious and perceptive enough to assign color to wavelength, a rose is red because it is a red rose.

We absolutely do not have to suppose that a rose is conscious of its own color in order to make sense of the fact that it is red. All we have to suppose is that reflecting light of 600nm conferred an evolutionary advantage to the rose. If this is the case, then the rose will have wound up red whether it knew it or not. And what is the evolutionary advantage? Just that insects are attracted to 600nm light and so are attracted to the rose, and when insects jump from rose to rose they help the roses to fertilize eachother.

Well, why are insects attracted to 600nm light, you ask? Because they can see the intrinsic redness of 600nm light? That would be an entirely unfounded assumption. For all we know, insects see 600nm light as purple, or blue, or some color we are entirely unfamiliar with; or, perhaps, 600nm light striking their eyes induces a pleasant buzzing tactile sensation in them. We don't know exactly what kind of subjective perception 600nm light invokes in insects, and to say that it is precisely the same kind of subjective perception that 600nm light invokes in a human is a gigantic assumption, not a solid argument.

The color of the rose is intrinsic to the rose and we perceive that color passively not by actively assigning it it's color.

Don't just say it, prove it.

[Royce]

I was restating and hopefully clarifying my position, opinion on this subject and the main lines of my reasons for believing or holding this position.

You say that color is perceived in the mind yet a mind is not necessary for color to exist. Is this consistent?

You seem to be saying that a red rose is not red unless someone or thing is present to perceive it as red. This is not unlike the proverbial tree falling in the forest. If no one is there to hear it does it make sound while falling? I read long ago that the definition of sound was that it was not sound until it was heard and perceived as such. I thought then that therefore the tree made no sound unless someone was present to hear it. This now in my opinion is false as it is too simplistic. It ignores that the vibrations contain information that is external to any being to perceive it just as color being carried by light. It also ignores that life responds to it's external environment not invent or create it. In other words life developes through evolution the ability to hear, see smell that which is already present in its surroundings and contains information
about those surroundings.
This is why I say that it is all about information and not assigned values. We, life did not evolve to assign values to its sensory inputs but to more or less accurately model a mental image and awareness of it's surroundings via our senses and the information carried to us via our senses and the media carrying it.
Simply, I say a rose is red whether anyone is there to see it or not.
You and others are saying that the rose is red only when and if someone is there to see it and assign it the color red.
Can I prove any of this? No, of course not; but, then neither can you or anyone else.
I had another thought about all of this last night. If we look at this from a Quantum Mechanics view point, then a conscious being is required to collapse the wave and make the waveform not only a rose but a red rose. In that case everything is subjective and the objective reality does not exist without a consciousness to make it come into existence. This is too idealistic for me. I firmly believe that the real objective world exist with our without me or any consciousness to make it be. I, of course may be wrong.

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Royce
You say that color is perceived in the mind yet a mind is not necessary for color to exist. Is this consistent?

Yes, it IS "consistent" because existence and perception are neither mutually exclusive nor mutually dependent. That are "simply" part of a "process" that comprises the "dynamics" of the Universe.

In my opinion, things exist whether they are detected by one thing or another ...or not. Everything detects SOMETHING ...and RESPONDS TO IT, too.

To put it within the context of MY paradigm: red is one of an almost infinite number of EXPRESSIONS of the Energy of the Universe. Color is but ONE segment (and varied at that!) of that part of the "forces" of the Universe of which we are aware. There are countless others of which we are NOT aware. Yet, OTHER creatures can detect them ...such as the electric fields of objects (as detected by sharks), of light polarization waves from the sun (as detected by some birds), magnetisms (many creatures), ionic fields (snakes), etc.

It would not be too hard to see that this could perhaps extend to what electrons may "detect" (positive charge of proton) or what planets may "detect" via gravity ...which "communicates" each other's mass and the dynamic positions each should take in relationship to one another.

I will present elsewhere -- when I have succeeded in "refocusing" ...that is, moving something from a position of "primary importance" and putting it on the "back burner" while I think about THIS -- that "consciousness" is nothing more than an "exchange of information" ...however simple or complex. This would then be my Theory of Consciousness as Information Exchange which basically proposes that consciousness is "merely " the sensing and responding to of an object (elementary particles) or system (atoms, us and galaxies).

The "level" of consciousness would be based on the array and quantity of "sensors" ...some very simple ("I sense the weak force and respond by sticking to THIS particle other particle, OK?"

The brain is no more than an organic device designed to expand our detecting and response capacities. It did so through "evolution" ...which I maintain is a "product" of INTENTION of All Systems (a future thread?).

Our instrumentation also expands what we can perceive, like telescope, microscopes and the various devices that "see" xrays and other so-called "invisible" positions of the electromagnetic spectrum. And there may be a whole OTHER "realm" (hint: QM) wherein the "force" of INTENTION within -- and across -- the many sub-systems of the System -- manifests "materiality" out of "potentiality".

These sub-systems include basically everything, from atoms on up to galaxies, each EXERTING "forces" of many sorts and RESPONDING TO those things it is "sensitive" to. Those things it cannot "sense" it doesn't "respond" to.

These systems and their forces exist whether or not we -- or anything else -- can detect them. On the other hand, the Universe -- being All Information All the Time -- has set it up so that It gives rise to sub-systems that can "detect" certain things. This is how the Universe is "a living conscious Entity that's responsive to all of It's parts" (another proposal).

Thus, each part of Itself is "conscious" in that it is at least AWARE OF -- AND RESPONSIVE TO -- something ELSE.



This is why I say that it is all about information and not assigned values. We, life did not evolve to assign values to its sensory inputs but to more or less accurately model a mental image and awareness of it's surroundings via our senses and the information carried to us via our senses and the media carrying it.

And here you have said it yourself ...that, at its "essense" Everything is about Information ...the detection of it and the response to it!

I firmly believe that the real objective world exist with our without me or any consciousness to make it be. I, of course may be wrong.

How can this be "wrong" when I agree with you? [;)]

But here's a better question: What if someone told us that it is the "Will of God" that we not discuss this ...and what if we were young, impressionable and eager-to-be-devoted enough to BELIEVE them ...you know, BEFORE our "Devil's Advocate" skills kicked in?! [?]

[Royce]

My point is, once again, that the the information we receive and detect exists external to us. It is intrinsic. A rose is red, period and the light reflected carries that information to us. We then perceive the rose is red and say I think that I'll call this rose red and assign it that value.
As far as your last paragraph, I can only fall back on my own limited experience. When I began to see and feel that religionists were trying to suppress my humanity, intellect and sexuality I began to question not just them but everything I had "learned."
The question I could never resolve within their set of beliefs was way would God create me as I am, a male human being with an inquisitive thinking mind, if it was his will that I deny and suppress all of it. It was not natural nor was it logical. If God were that way then he doesn't deserve my love devotion or worship as the people trying to make me believe and think as they did did not deserve my respect nor credence. It was not that God was this way but that they were obviously wrong or they had a reason for trying to control my thoughts and mind. I fought this tooth and nail for many years. Now looking back I can see that they were only trying to discipline me and my run away mind. Trying to guide me while I struggled to define myself and my God. They simply used the wrong method or approach with me. They were after all only trying to teach me what they had been taught and what they accepted as right.
I of course as a teenager knew better and more than they did. I was amazed at how much they had learned when I came back after several years in college and the Navy.

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Royce
My point is, once again, that the the information we receive and detect exists external to us. It is intrinsic.
And, for the record, we agree on this.



As far as your last paragraph, I can only fall back on my own limited experience. When I began to see and feel that religionists were trying to suppress my humanity, intellect and sexuality I began to question not just them but everything I had "learned."
The question I could never resolve within their set of beliefs was way would God create me as I am, a male human being with an inquisitive thinking mind, if it was his will that I deny and suppress all of it. It was not natural nor was it logical. If God were that way then he doesn't deserve my love devotion or worship as the people trying to make me believe and think as they did did not deserve my respect nor credence. It was not that God was this way but that they were obviously wrong or they had a reason for trying to control my thoughts and mind. I fought this tooth and nail for many years. Now looking back I can see that they were only trying to discipline me and my run away mind. Trying to guide me while I struggled to define myself and my God. They simply used the wrong method or approach with me. They were after all only trying to teach me what they had been taught and what they accepted as right.
I of course as a teenager knew better and more than they did. I was amazed at how much they had learned when I came back after several years in college and the Navy.
Well said ...except for your "conclusion" about seeing how much "they had learned" after you grew up. Intentions aside, they were DEAD WRONG about "God" ...and REMAIN SO!

Nonetheless, you have given me hope that one young mind will make it through.

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Royce
You say that color is perceived in the mind yet a mind is not necessary for color to exist. Is this consistent?

No, I say that color is perceived in the mind as a function of a light's wavelength. There is a clear dissociation to be made here that you cannot seem to accept, even in someone else's argument. Color exists in the mind as a function of light wavelength; a mind is not necessary for light wavelength to exist. Color and wavelength are two ontologically distinct concepts. Where is the problem in that statement?

If you automatically equate color with light wavelength at the outset you are just begging the question by assuming your position is true instead of starting off from a neutral standpoint and then showing that your argument must be true. And that will never lead to any productive discussion. If you can't get over that point, then it's your right to believe whatever you want to believe; just recognize that you have not arrived at your belief using a well-reasoned argument but instead are taking it on faith (as a starting assumption).

This is why I say that it is all about information and not assigned values. We, life did not evolve to assign values to its sensory inputs but to more or less accurately model a mental image and awareness of it's surroundings via our senses and the information carried to us via our senses and the media carrying it.

Why is seeing a rose as this color any more 'accurate' than seeing a rose as this color? If it is true that a rose is inherently this color, then how is it that we somehow happened upon the 'correct' way to see a rose when we equally as well could have evolved to see it as this color?

Simply, I say a rose is red whether anyone is there to see it or not.
You and others are saying that the rose is red only when and if someone is there to see it and assign it the color red.

That is an inaccurate description of the scientific position. What you are advocating here is a form of naive realism (http://www.wordreference.com/english/definition.asp?en=naive+realism). In fact, the objectively existing rose is never red. It does not have any inherent color at all. The mental representation of the rose that your brain creates when you gaze upon it, however, is red. When you look at the world you do not see it directly, you see it through mental representations. You never directly see the rose; you see your brain's model of the rose.

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
No, I say that color is perceived in the mind as a function of a light's wavelength.
Yes, the wavelength is perceived in the mind by virtue of certain sensory apparatus (the eyes which are extensions of the brain)which are sensitive to certain wavelengths (and "blind" to others). The wavelength, however, is NOT dependent on it being PERCEIVED. Are you and I in agreement on this?

There is a clear dissociation to be made here that you cannot seem to accept, even in someone else's argument. Color exists in the mind as a function of light wavelength; a mind is not necessary for light wavelength to exist.
I believe Royce is saying just that: that the mind is not necessary for the wavelength to exist. However, what you do not seem to be saying in THIS paragraph (tho you acknowledge it in another)is that "color" -- rather than "existing in the mind as a function of light wavelength" -- "exists" as a "MODEL" which the brain REFERENCES when it perceives a particular wavelength and IDENTIFIES as a "match" which we have "agreed" to call "red".

Color and wavelength are two ontologically distinct concepts. Where is the problem in that statement?
Wavelength is intrinsic; color is how we identify the wavelength. No?

If you automatically equate color with light wavelength at the outset you are just begging the question by assuming your position is true instead of starting off from a neutral standpoint and then showing that your argument must be true. And that will never lead to any productive discussion. If you can't get over that point, then it's your right to believe whatever you want to believe; just recognize that you have not arrived at your belief using a well-reasoned argument but instead are taking it on faith (as a starting assumption).
One can spell-out the DNA sequence of a dog -- which might take some time, but at least would be completely accurate within a certain context -- or we could just call it a dog. I could be wrong, but I thought this discussion was about whether something (like a wavelength which we happen to identify as red) is intrinsic to the Universe, or whether it depends on the mind PERCEIVING the wavelength. If I am wrong, I hope that you or Royce will correct me.



Why is seeing a rose as this color any more 'accurate' than seeing a rose as this color? If it is true that a rose is inherently this color, then how is it that we somehow happened upon the 'correct' way to see a rose when we equally as well could have evolved to see it as this color?

The wavelength of the color of the rose is intrinsic within the Universe as a part of the em spectrum. That we -- upon receiving the "information" that our brains have evolved to perceive -- call it "red" is simply what we have "agreed upon" by some sort of consensus that we assign to this particular wavelength.

IOW, "red" is an INTERPRETATION of data.


That is an inaccurate description of the scientific position. What you are advocating here is a form of naive realism (http://www.wordreference.com/english/definition.asp?en=naive+realism). In fact, the objectively existing rose is never red. It does not have any inherent color at all. The mental representation of the rose that your brain creates when you gaze upon it, however, is red. When you look at the world you do not see it directly, you see it through mental representations. You never directly see the rose; you see your brain's model of the rose.
The brain may be creating a model of a rose ...or, it may HAVE created a model of a rose and, upon comparing incoming information (the wavelength), the brain "decides" it has a "match" and we come forth with the designation that it is a rose.

Actually -- IMO -- we ARE detecting the world "directly" but must then PROCESS the incoming INFORMATION by comparing said real-time information to whatever model exists as a function of (almost) simultaneous firings of particular neurons that "comprise" the "model".

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Yes, the wavelength is perceived in the mind by virtue of certain sensory apparatus (the eyes which are extensions of the brain)which are sensitive to certain wavelengths (and "blind" to others). The wavelength, however, is NOT dependent on it being PERCEIVED. Are you and I in agreement on this?

Yes, but Royce seems insistent on equating the notions of 'wavelength' and 'color,' rather than being satisfied with a more abstract relationship between the two. The terms (as I am using them, at least) can't be used interchangably. Wavelength is not dependent on observation for existence, but color is.

However, what you do not seem to be saying in THIS paragraph (tho you acknowledge it in another)is that "color" -- rather than "existing in the mind as a function of light wavelength" -- "exists" as a "MODEL" which the brain REFERENCES when it perceives a particular wavelength and IDENTIFIES as a "match" which we have "agreed" to call "red".

That is a more or less accurate description of my position. But I don't see how the notion of color as a model for physical reality contradicts or is incompatible with the notion of color as arising as a function of brain activity. (Perceived color is generated dynamically by brain activity as a function of input (light wavelength), and this dynamically generated perception in turn serves as a model for the physical input.)

Wavelength is intrinsic; color is how we identify the wavelength. No?

Color is one way of identifying the wavelength. If our brains were wired differently, we would identify wavelengths of light with certain sounds. There is no deep or necessary connection between perceptual color and physical wavelength; rather, the two are associated by an arbitrary isomorphism created by the brain, and in principle this isomorphism could have been created with perceptual 'tools' entirely different from color vision.


I could be wrong, but I thought this discussion was about whether something (like a wavelength which we happen to identify as red) is intrinsic to the Universe, or whether it depends on the mind PERCEIVING the wavelength. If I am wrong, I hope that you or Royce will correct me.

I believe Royce's argument is that the colors themselves that we perceive when we view a pattern of light are intrinsic to that light, not just the wavelength. I'm not sure he even makes a meaningful distinction between color and wavelength.

Actually -- IMO -- we ARE detecting the world "directly" but must then PROCESS the incoming INFORMATION by comparing said real-time information to whatever model exists as a function of (almost) simultaneous firings of particular neurons that "comprise" the "model". [/B]

We perceive the world directly in an objective sense. But the things that we actually see-- our conscious, subjective experiences-- are not a direct perception of the world as it is but rather are a mediated, indirect perception of the world as we represent it via perceptual representations. What we directly experience in consciousness are models of reality, not reality itself. Hence it is in error to say that color itself-- a perceptual model created by the brain-- is a property of the world as it actually is. Color is a property of the world as we represent it; it is a perceptual signpost telling us about wavelengths, but it is not directly or fundamentally related to the wavelength itself.

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
Yes, but Royce seems insistent on equating the notions of 'wavelength' and 'color,' rather than being satisfied with a more abstract relationship between the two. The terms (as I am using them, at least) can't be used interchangably. Wavelength is not dependent on observation for existence, but color is.
With all due respect, I'm pretty sure that Royce knows that "red" is just the "name" we have given our PERCEPTION of a wavelength, and that it is the wavelength -- and not its designation -- that is INTRINSIC to the Universe. Perhaps he has just chosen to call it a "dog" rather than spell out its genome.


That is a more or less accurate description of my position. But I don't see how the notion of color as a model for physical reality contradicts or is incompatible with the notion of color as arising as a function of brain activity.
As I have said, they are NOT "incompatible" but are in fact different "segments" of the process of INFORMATION DETECTION & RESPONSE. The detection -- or sensing -- of that which is actually happening (a particular wavelength emanating from something) is at the "receiving end" of whatever apparatus is doing the "detecting". The "response" may only be the RECOGNITION of a particular wavelength we have agreed to call "red" ...or the "response" may include any number of "effects" in the "observer" beyond mere recognition -- and naming of -- the wavelength.

This, btw, is what I am proposing is the nature of fundamental consciousness ...the detection and response to "information".

(Perceived color is generated dynamically by brain activity as a function of input (light wavelength)

No, not as a "function" of input, but as an INTERPRETATION of input..." The "function of input" is to "inform".

...and this dynamically generated perception in turn serves as a model for the physical input.
...previously stored data within a system to which incoming information is compared. This is information "processing".


Color is one way of identifying the wavelength. If our brains were wired differently, we would identify wavelengths of light with certain sounds. There is no deep or necessary connection between perceptual color and physical wavelength; rather, the two are associated by an arbitrary isomorphism created by the brain, and in principle this isomorphism could have been created with perceptual 'tools' entirely different from color vision.
And there are creatures that can see/detect/sense/perceive wavelengths and OTHER information that we cannot. The point is -- well, at least, MY point is -- that everything perceives and responds to something ...and that it is merely a matter of complexity -- both in what CAN be perceived by an entity and the responses an entity can have -- that positions the entity's "consciousness" somewhere along a "Consciousness Continuum." But that's another thread.

I believe Royce's argument is that the colors themselves that we perceive when we view a pattern of light are intrinsic to that light, not just the wavelength. I'm not sure he even makes a meaningful distinction between color and wavelength.
I say he does. And if he doesn't, he has his reasons.



We perceive the world directly in an objective sense. But the things that we actually see-- our conscious, subjective experiences-- are not a direct perception of the world as it is but rather are a mediated, indirect perception of the world as we represent it via perceptual representations. What we directly experience in consciousness are models of reality, not reality itself. Hence it is in error to say that color itself-- a perceptual model created by the brain-- is a property of the world as it actually is. Color is a property of the world as we represent it; it is a perceptual signpost telling us about wavelengths, but it is not directly or fundamentally related to the wavelength itself.
While I agree with most of what you have said, I am guessing that you did not mean to say that color is not "related" to the wavelength: it is "related" by virtue of being the name we have agree to CALL a detected wavelength. I think you mean that is is not an intrinsic PROPERTY of the wavelength, but a property of the process of INTERPRETATION of incoming data.

So, now that I have managed to put words in your and Royce's mouth -- and hoping that you each will forgive me for so doing -- I will depart. [a)]

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
With all due respect, I'm pretty sure that Royce knows that "red" is just the "name" we have given our PERCEPTION of a wavelength, and that it is the wavelength -- and not its designation -- that is INTRINSIC to the Universe. Perhaps he has just chosen to call it a "dog" rather than spell out its genome.

Well, let's allow Royce to expound on his personal philosophy. In any case, a meaningful discussion can't be had if we can't agree on how to define basic terms.

This, btw, is what I am proposing is the nature of fundamental consciousness ...the detection and response to "information".

I think you will like this article (http://www.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/papers/facing.html) very much, then.

No, not as a "function" of input, but as an INTERPRETATION of input..." The "function of input" is to "inform".

By "function of input," I just meant that in a normally functioning brain, color perception depends on or is a function of light wavelength.

And there are creatures that can see/detect/sense/perceive wavelengths and OTHER information that we cannot. The point is -- well, at least, MY point is -- that everything perceives and responds to something ...and that it is merely a matter of complexity -- both in what CAN be perceived by an entity and the responses an entity can have -- that positions the entity's "consciousness" somewhere along a "Consciousness Continuum." But that's another thread.

Yes, in fact, this response has nothing to do with my original text in the context in which it was written. [;)] The point I was trying to make is that if an organism can consciously perceive the same physical stimulus-- say, light of wavelength 600nm-- in any arbitrary way, rather than necessarily perceiving it in one certain way, then this casts doubt on the notion that the conscious perception is inherent in the stimulus.

While I agree with most of what you have said, I am guessing that you did not mean to say that color is not "related" to the wavelength: it is "related" by virtue of being the name we have agree to CALL a detected wavelength. I think you mean that is is not an intrinsic PROPERTY of the wavelength, but a property of the process of INTERPRETATION of incoming data.

That is correct. I didn't say color perception is not related at all to physical stimuli. I said that there is no direct or fundamental relation between the two. It is not an inherent relation, it is a created one; the relation does not exist until a brain comes into the picture to bring it about.

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
Well, let's allow Royce to expound on his personal philosophy. In any case, a meaningful discussion can't be had if we can't agree on how to define basic terms.
What are you talking about? It happens all the time here on the threads. [;)]

Oh, you said "meaningful" didn't you ...in which case, I agree. What terms would you like to define?



I think you will like this article (http://www.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/papers/facing.html) very much, then.
Am printing it out at this very moment (12 pages; you owe me a cartrige). Will return with my take on his POV in some future post.

By "function of input," I just meant that in a normally functioning brain, color perception depends on or is a function of light wavelength.
OK.


Yes, in fact, this response has nothing to do with my original text in the context in which it was written. [;)] The point I was trying to make is that if an organism can consciously perceive the same physical stimulus-- say, light of wavelength 600nm-- in any arbitrary way, rather than necessarily perceiving it in one certain way, then this casts doubt on the notion that the conscious perception is inherent in the stimulus.
Even if you are saying (and I'm not sure you are) that if an organism can perceive a stimulus differently from other organisms -- or even different from what it perceived the LAST time it perceived it -- does this preclude it's being "conscious" of the stimulus ...which, of course, it does not.


That is correct. I didn't say color perception is not related at all to physical stimuli. I said that there is no direct or fundamental relation between the two. It is not an inherent relation, it is a created one; the relation does not exist until a brain comes into the picture to bring it about.
I concur.

And now back to what's left of my life.

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
What terms would you like to define?

Color: the experiential quality that differentiates this phrase from this phrase.

This definition of color involves only perception / subjective experience, not objective reality. Whether color is intrinsic to the objective reality that it represents or not is a further question above and beyond this basic definition, and we should use well reasoned arguments to come to a conclusion on this matter rather than assume one position or the other at the start. Otherwise we are simply redefining "color."

Even if you are saying (and I'm not sure you are) that if an organism can perceive a stimulus differently from other organisms -- or even different from what it perceived the LAST time it perceived it -- does this preclude it's being "conscious" of the stimulus ...which, of course, it does not.

No, it doesn't, but that was not the point I was trying to make.

I concur.

Then you are in agreement with me and not in agreement with Royce's basic position.

[Royce]

First, sorry it took so long to get back and hold up my end.

This is how I am looking at it:

Light, photons, is the carrier of information.

Wave length, or frequency if you prefer, is the sub carrier or type of modulation that imposes or encodes the information on to the light.
The specific frequency, wavelength or energy level of the light is the actual information encoded and is in fact color or a representation of the actual objective color of the source of that information.

Let me compare it to sound which is nothing more than vibration. If the vibes are random then it is noise and contains no information.

If the vibes are modulated by both frequency and amplitude in a non random but organized way then it is information.

If the frequency is periodic then it is tonal. Tonality is a value of sound. 440 Hz is a tone we call middle A. Regardless of what we call it or what and individual may hear or perceive or not the tone exists as a value of the sound and that value is designated as Middle A.
It will be a Middle A if it is plucked on a guitar, stroked on a violin, blown on a horn or struck on a piano regardless of whether anyone is there to hear it or not. Middle A is thus a specific tonal value of sound and is intrinsic.

Light, photons of a specific energy level have a characteristic wave length that is determined by the physical properties of its source. The physical property that determines the wavelength of the vibrations of the photons is what we call and perceive as color. A wavelength of a specific length may be red another wave length may be blue or green. This is not an individual specific response or or perception. It is not only species wide but also inter-species and inter-order wide. It is common to nearly all life and is independent of life or consciousness or perception.

If a photon has a physical objective attribute of a certain energy level it vibrates at a certain correlated frequency with a certain wavelength and that frequency or wavelength is the color of that photon. If the color of the photon is red then we perceive it as red not blue or green or dirty socks or vanilla. If a malfunctioning individual does perceive it as other than red then it is that individuals problem and does not change the color or wavelength of the photon.

The reason we perceive it as red is because it is red. Why or how could we evolve to see it as anything else? Reduce it all you want or deny reality all you want but it will always be red because that is its intrinsic color value due to the color of its source.

To say that color does not exist in objective reality is absurd. It is saying that information does not exist in objective reality and that we are making it all up in our heads. If that is the case then any and all discussions, philosophies and sciences are meaningless and you nor anyone else can be proven to exist and I am arguing with myself. Then.....I WIN!!!![:D]

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Royce
First, sorry it took so long to get back and hold up my end.

This is how I am looking at it:

Light, photons, is the carrier of information.

Wave length, or frequency if you prefer, is the sub carrier or type of modulation that imposes or encodes the information on to the light.
The specific frequency, wavelength or energy level of the light is the actual information encoded and is in fact color or a representation of the actual objective color of the source of that information.

Let me compare it to sound which is nothing more than vibration. If the vibes are random then it is noise and contains no information.

If the vibes are modulated by both frequency and amplitude in a non random but organized way then it is information.

If the frequency is periodic then it is tonal. Tonality is a value of sound. 440 Hz is a tone we call middle A. Regardless of what we call it or what and individual may hear or perceive or not the tone exists as a value of the sound and that value is designated as Middle A.
It will be a Middle A if it is plucked on a guitar, stroked on a violin, blown on a horn or struck on a piano regardless of whether anyone is there to hear it or not. Middle A is thus a specific tonal value of sound and is intrinsic.

Light, photons of a specific energy level have a characteristic wave length that is determined by the physical properties of its source. The physical property that determines the wavelength of the vibrations of the photons is what we call and perceive as color. A wavelength of a specific length may be red another wave length may be blue or green. This is not an individual specific response or or perception. It is not only species wide but also inter-species and inter-order wide. It is common to nearly all life and is independent of life or consciousness or perception.

If a photon has a physical objective attribute of a certain energy level it vibrates at a certain correlated frequency with a certain wavelength and that frequency or wavelength is the color of that photon. If the color of the photon is red then we perceive it as red not blue or green or dirty socks or vanilla. If a malfunctioning individual does perceive it as other than red then it is that individuals problem and does not change the color or wavelength of the photon.

The reason we perceive it as red is because it is red. Why or how could we evolve to see it as anything else? Reduce it all you want or deny reality all you want but it will always be red because that is its intrinsic color value due to the color of its source.

To say that color does not exist in objective reality is absurd. It is saying that information does not exist in objective reality and that we are making it all up in our heads. If that is the case then any and all discussions, philosophies and sciences are meaningless and you nor anyone else can be proven to exist and I am arguing with myself. Then.....I WIN!!!![:D]

LOL, Royce, tho I'm sure you know that a "red object" can appear gray or black under the sea. Is this the "fault" of the observer? Or is the data that's getting through -- i.e., a DIFFERENT wavelength -- being INTERPRETTED as something other than red? Also, other creatures do not "see" the same colors we do: IOW, a "red" flower may be sending out a certain wavelength on the so-called "visible" part of the em spectrum, but a bird or a bee may be sensing its "color" in the ultraviolet range.

[hypnagogue]

Royce, if you respond directly to my critiques of your ideas then I will be glad to continue our discussion. But if you insist on simply re-stating your ideas rather than defending them from my critiques (which apply as much as ever to your latest re-statement), there is no point in continuing and I will just have to wish you well on your further adventures in thought. (Not that it proves your stance wrong, by the way, but I hope you know that 99.999...% of people knowledgable in science and philosophy find your position absurd-- you may want to reflect more on it personally if not publically. But maybe not. Whatever you wish. [:)])

[Royce]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
LOL, Royce, tho I'm sure you know that a "red object" can appear gray or black under the sea. Is this the "fault" of the observer? Or is the data that's getting through -- i.e., a DIFFERENT wavelength -- being INTERPRETTED as something other than red? Also, other creatures do not "see" the same colors we do: IOW, a "red" flower may be sending out a certain wavelength on the so-called "visible" part of the em spectrum, but a bird or a bee may be sensing its "color" in the ultraviolet range.

M., There are two reasons why an object appears gray or black under water. depending on the depth the light available for reflection may not contain the colors necessary to reflect that color the other is that the available light may not have enough intensity to activate the cones in our retinas. Color vision is far less sensitive than our black and white vision. The same thing happens in a dimly lit room.

It is true that birds and bees may see the light in different colors than we do and see a different spectrum band with than we do; however, it has been shown that dolphins, birds and other animals can tell the difference between colors. What they perceive or see is any body's guess but they do see color and can tell that different colors are different.

[Royce]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
Sure it would. Reading a book vs. hearing a speaker are two different methods of perception that nonetheless give us the same informational content. Likewise, perception of color is communication of information about light's wavelength through a means different from directly measuring the physical dimensions of the wavelength. Nonetheless, we receive the same information about light through both means.

hypnagogue, yes I know that 99.999% of science and philosophy think the way you do. I did too as I stated in the open post of this thread.
Thinking of this topic from the view point of information rather than physical processes, however, changed my opinion. Since it is a new or different way to think about it, at least to me, I have no resources or authorities to reference or quote and only have my own reasoning and logic to support my views. I think that they are valid reasons for thinking as I do. I am thinking outside the box so very little inside the box will be of any use to me in support of my thinking.

Now to respond directly to your counter arguments. Above you state; t
"perception of color is communication of information about the light's wavelength." I say, No, our perception is via the selective response to wavelength that communicates the color of the light source. It is just the opposite of what your saying. Wave length is the indicator of color. It is through this indicator,wavelength, that color is communicated to us so that our perception accurately models reality.

You are confusing subjective qualities and objective information here. There is no reason to think that the kind of information that embodies a subjective perception is identical to the kind of information that embodies objective physical dimensions, as you are trying to assert.

There is every reason to think that. We developed and have senses to give us an accurate, more or less, model of the real world about us.
Why would we think that that which we perceive is different from the real objective world we are trying to gather information about so that we can survive rather than be at its whim.


Rather, there is every reason to believe that the brain sets up an isomorphism between the two, so that it always associates light of wavelength X with color of subjective quality Y. In this way, the brain can keep track of informational content of the objective world without ever needing to invoke properties that are actually intrinsic to it.

If the subjective quality Y is not a model or a representation of the real world X then it is not information but misinformation and not, therefore, isomorphic. It would be not only useless to us it could be dangerous as in the coral/king snake example that I mentioned.

Isomorphism does not an identity make. To establish an identity you need a much stronger argument, which you haven't been able to present yet. In fact, there is very good reason to think that there is not an exact identity here, but rather that the isomorphism is to some extent an arbitrary construction. It doesn't matter how I read a book to you (eg with my voice or with sign language, etc), as long as I get the information across. Likewise, it doesn't matter how the brain represents light of a certain wavelength (as this color, or this color, or as a certain sound); as long as the brain uses the same perceptual signs for the same physical input, the isomorphism is conserved and we receive reliable information about the objective world. (If I perceived light of wavelength 600nm as this color instead of this color, I still would act just as warily around snakes with bands that reflect 600nm light; in either case, I have to learn that 600nm reflecting snakes are bad news.) The fact that the brain can use different perceptions to represent the same physical stimulus is very strong evidence that the perceptual quality is generated by the brain, as opposed to being an intrinsic property of the stimulus itself.[/B][/QUOTE]

I agree with everything that you say here. The difference lies in that wavelength is due to the color or the source and it is by wavelength that that information is conveyed to us. The source emits or reflects a light of a given wavelength depending on its color. We sense and detect the wavelength and perceive the color of the source.

Example. Suppose I construct an isomorphism on the counting numbers, such that for each number 0-9 I represent it with a letter A-J. Then saying 1 + 1 = 2 has the same informational content as saying B + B = C. Here the information content is the same, but the carriers or messangers of information are different. When you say that our subjective perception of the color red is an intrinsic property of light, it is like saying that the symbol "1" is an intrinsic property of the informational concept "one." But clearly this is not the case; the symbol "1" and the symbol "B" here are both arbitrary constructions used to represent the same informational concept of "one." Analogously, the symbol written as "600 nm" and the perceptual symbol "this color" are both arbitrary constructions used to represent the same informational concept. [/B][/QUOTE]
Here I disagree. Light with a wavelength of 600nm is red. The source or the 600nm light is red. The 600nm light is red and the response elicited is the perception of red. Red is what we call and perceive light with a 600nm wavelength to be.

[Royce]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
This is not inconsistent with saying that perceptual color originates in the brain.

Yes perceptual color originates in the brain or mind; but, usually the perception of color is in response to our eyes sensing light of a particular wavelength which is due to the color of the source. How else can light take on a specific wavelength? What determines the wavelength of the light that we see?


This is not a problem even if we take the position that color originates in the brain. There is nothing in this statement that logically contradicts that position.

But, color does not originate in the brain. The brain response with color perception due to the color of the light striking the eye. the color of the light is determined by the color of the source. If color originates in the brain then the brain is inventing characteristics that have no basis in reality. That is the anti-thesis of information gathering, That is hallucination.



We absolutely do not have to suppose that a rose is conscious of its own color in order to make sense of the fact that it is red. All we have to suppose is that reflecting light of 600nm conferred an evolutionary advantage to the rose. If this is the case, then the rose will have wound up red whether it knew it or not. And what is the evolutionary advantage? Just that insects are attracted to 600nm light and so are attracted to the rose, and when insects jump from rose to rose they help the roses to fertilize each other.

Yes, I agree here. That was not a good post or point; however, what we call light with a wavelength of 600nm is red and we perceive it as red because the object, the rose, is red. That is the information that we and the insects gather and respond to. Why else would we, life have that ability?


Well, why are insects attracted to 600nm light, you ask? Because they can see the intrinsic redness of 600nm light? That would be an entirely unfounded assumption. For all we know, insects see 600nm light as purple, or blue, or some color we are entirely unfamiliar with; or, perhaps, 600nm light striking their eyes induces a pleasant buzzing tactile sensation in them. We don't know exactly what kind of subjective perception 600nm light invokes in insects, and to say that it is precisely the same kind of subjective perception that 600nm light invokes in a human is a gigantic assumption, not a solid argument.

Why would we assume that eyes constructed in nearly identical ways with nerves made of nearly identical stuff going to a brain made up of nearly identical stuff would see something different rather than the same thing that we see. Yeah I agree that is quite a stretch between insect anatomy and human anatomy but between humans and animals including fish and birds it is not that big of a stretch.
If one is in Texas and hears hoof beats one should not look for zebras.



Don't just say it, prove it.
Can't. I can only reason and tell you why and how I think as I do.
Unfortunately this is such a limited subject that I can only keep repeating my reasoning as you can only keep repeating you objections

[Royce]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
No, I say that color is perceived in the mind as a function of a light's wavelength. There is a clear dissociation to be made here that you cannot seem to accept, even in someone else's argument. Color exists in the mind as a function of light wavelength; a mind is not necessary for light wavelength to exist. Color and wavelength are two ontologically distinct concepts. Where is the problem in that statement?

They are not two distint statements because; 1. Scientist define color by wavelength. 2. The wavelength of light is determined by the color of its source whether emitted or reflected. The light from a red light bulb and the light reflected from a red ball both have the distinctive wavelength of 600nm (I'm using your figures here. I haven't looked it up myself) our eyes and brain respond to light with a wavelength of 600nm with a perception of red. What is wrong with this statement?


If you automatically equate color with light wavelength at the outset you are just begging the question by assuming your position is true instead of starting off from a neutral standpoint and then showing that your argument must be true. And that will never lead to any productive discussion. If you can't get over that point, then it's your right to believe whatever you want to believe; just recognize that you have not arrived at your belief using a well-reasoned argument but instead are taking it on faith (as a starting assumption).

I am not equating color with wavelength. Science does. Light with a wavelength of 600nm is red in color. Red light has a wavelength of 600nm. Don't believe me. Look it up in any high school physics book.
Once again; the ball is red. it reflects red light of a wavelength of 600nm. The light strikes the retina of our eys and sense a signal to our brain; "Hey! this light has a wavelength of 600nm, a brightness of such and such lumins and a circular shape with shading and shadows that indicate it to be spheroid in shape and is so big and so far.
Walla! our brain perceives a red ball so big and so far from us. This is not rocket surgery. [;)]


Why is seeing a rose as this color any more 'accurate' than seeing a rose as this color? If it is true that a rose is inherently this color, then how is it that we somehow happened upon the 'correct' way to see a rose when we equally as well could have evolved to see it as this color?
Why would we evolve to gather misinformation to misrepresent the real world about us. When color is important information. Why are poisonous frogs snakes and insects marked with such brilliant and contrasting colors especially red and black. Is that the same reason that we use red and black to warn of danger? Is there something universal with animal life and its color perception and emotional reponse to certain colors? Could this be another indication that color is intrinsic and we evolved to detect and perceive color because it is characteristicly associated with certain types of things? Red is hot and dangerous. Green is cool and soothing because its probably good to eat and cool and soft to lay down in. Blue is cold and forbidding because blue water is deep and forbidding.



That is an inaccurate description of the scientific position. What you are advocating here is a form of naive realism (http://www.wordreference.com/english/definition.asp?en=naive+realism). In fact, the objectively existing rose is never red. It does not have any inherent color at all. The mental representation of the rose that your brain creates when you gaze upon it, however, is red. When you look at the world you do not see it directly, you see it through mental representations. You never directly see the rose; you see your brain's model of the rose.

Once again you say what you denied that you said. Color does not exist in objective reality. The rose has no inherent color at all; your brain creates. This is the exact opposite of my position and I do not think that it is an inaccurate discription of the scientific position. It is another way of looking at the scientific position.
I said from the very start that we see the rose as red because the rose is red. our senses are passive. Our brains respond to stimuli not invent them. The rose reflects 600nm light because it is red and we detect that 600nm light and correctly perceive it as red because that is the information contained in the light. That information is real and can be measured as wavelength. This make color intrinsic information of the real world about us.

[selfAdjoint]

They are not two distint statements because; 1. Scientist define color by wavelength. 2. The wavelength of light is determined by the color of its source whether emitted or reflected. The light from a red light bulb and the light reflected from a red ball both have the distinctive wavelength of 600nm (I'm using your figures here. I haven't looked it up myself) our eyes and brain respond to light with a wavelength of 600nm with a perception of red. What is wrong with this statement?

Gee, what isn't?

1. "In terms of" is not the same thing as "is". I describe my location by latitude and longitude, two numbers. But my location is not two numbers.

2. "Is determined by" is not the same as "is", either. Just because something has a functional dependence on something else does not in any way imply that the two things are equal. Whether a student gets into a college may be determined by the student's GPA and SAT score - another pair of numbers, but getting into college is not a pair of numbers either.

3. Psychometricians and Mister Land have shown that other stimulations than a 600nm EM radiation can produce the sensation of red. It's like you just didn't look at all the explanations of the visual system at all.

[Royce]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
1. "In terms of" is not the same thing as "is". I describe my location by latitude and longitude, two numbers. But my location is not two numbers.

No, two numbers is not your location merely one way of communicating your location to others. Whether I refer to photons as having a wavelength of 600nm or having the color RED is referring to the same property or characteristic. It is simply two different ways of describing the same thing.


2. "Is determined by" is not the same as "is", either. Just because something has a functional dependence on something else does not in any way imply that the two things are equal. Whether a student gets into a college may be determined by the student's GPA and SAT score - another pair of numbers, but getting into college is not a pair of numbers either.

If the color of the source is red then the light is red and we perceive it as red. If the source is green then the light is green and we perceive it as green. Why is this so hard to understand or accept. I think that is another case of reductionism going to far and losing sight of what it is talking about. Wavelength and color are two equivalent ways of describing the same property


3. Psychometricians and Mister Land have shown that other stimulations than a 600nm EM radiation can produce the sensation of red. It's like you just didn't look at all the explanations of the visual system at all.

So what's your point. I don't care about the visual system or our nervous system or our brain functions in this thread. I am saying that color is intrinsic and external ot us not merely perception or value assigned by us. Color is one type of information that our senses receive and we perceive so that we are aware or the real world around us. Color is a property of that real world and is itself real. As it is an important piece of information we, life have evolved to sense color. We, life does not create nor invent color. Our senses are passive instruments to gather information about our surroundings. If we instead invent or make up this information then it has no value as a information gathering system.
Why would we have eyes when we all we have to do is dream or hallucinate all the colors we want. But then, why would we developer the mental or brain power to perceive color if it doesn't model the real world or if color does not exist in the real world.

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Royce
No, two numbers is not your location merely one way of communicating your location to others. Whether I refer to photons as having a wavelength of 600nm or having the color RED is referring to the same property or characteristic. It is simply two different ways of describing the same thing.

You've given up the ghost here. You can't concede this point and still hold your position. Two numbers describe or represent a geological location, but this does not mean that these numbers are inherent to the location itself. Likewise, this color describes or represents a certain type of light, but this does not mean that this color is inherent to the light itself. The color is indicative of a certain property that is intrinsic to the light itself, yes, but once again it does not follow from this that the indication of the intrinsic property and the intrinsic property itself are equivalent.

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
...The color is indicative of a certain property that is intrinsic to the light itself, yes, but once again it does not follow from this that the indication of the intrinsic property and the intrinsic property itself are equivalent.

Is consciousness "indicative" of a certain property that is intrinsic to all "matter" ...that is, the Exchange of Information?

Info Exchange -- DETECTION / RESPONSE -- may be the "cause" ...and consciousness the "effect".

And are the "equivalent"? Well, sort of ...in that they each produce the same results: THOUGHT.

Both the wavelength and the property of whatever is radiating from the object PRODUCE THE SAME RESULT ...although the wavelength TRANSFERS THE INFORMATION, hence wavelength may be "causal" while that which we call "properties of the object" would be the "results" ...materialistically -- and evolutionarilly -- speaking. But wait...

...Nothing "out there" would be able to SENSE a property without the wavelength, so, in effect, the wavelength IS "something different" by its "modality" -- what it DOES -- while any "property" is "merely" a RESPONSE to stimuli from the past that has had it PRODUCE said "property" ...such as "red".

Thus, wavelength and "red" would NOT be the same.

OTOH, Consciousness -- via what I am calling "INTENTION" -- would also play part in the feedback loop of Cause & Effect ...especially when systems (you, me, bugs) achieve a certain level of complexity that allows them to "reflect" ...that is, store and recall information and make up "stories" about it. I think the Universe communicates in metaphors (another theory) which may be why we evolved to "think in metaphors". This is how "meaning" comes about ...but I have to think HOW a complex exchange of information would lead to "meaning". Any ideas?

{Don't answer here. Will post new thread soon: "Consciousness: Information to Meaning. How?"}

In THIS context, of course, wavelength would be "information" while red would be its "meaning".

Anyway, in this case, consciousness (via INTENTION) would be at cause while the "detection system" would be the EFFECT of that INTENTION. An example of this might be an unspoken INTENTION of early man to work better with his fellows (develop language, plan ahead, invent devices) that gave rise to our currently functioning brain. However, it is merely a device to do MORE OF what everything is doing anyway: detecting and responding to information.

Have I committed any inconsistencies here? Please advise.

Meanwhile, if consciousness is at cause, perhaps it, too, travels in "waves" while Info Exchange may be but a mechanistic property (Law?) of "matter".

And if INTENTION drives the Universe It does so via a certain "sensory network" that may be "operational" even -- or most especially -- at the QM level.

Can anybody tell me how to "transport" posts to other threads?



Sorry, Royce, now I've invaded YOUR thread with my notions about consciousness. Please forgive: it's a stimulus/response thing. [:((]

[Royce]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
You've given up the ghost here. You can't concede this point and still hold your position. Two numbers describe or represent a geological location, but this does not mean that these numbers are inherent to the location itself.

Given a reference point and the units used the numbers of any and all points in any system are inherent to that point and no other point in that reference system. Without a reference point and units, location is meaningless and indeterminate. But this is apples and oranges. I do not see the connection.

Likewise, this color describes or represents a certain type of light, but this does not mean that this color is inherent to the light itself. The color is indicative of a certain property that is intrinsic to the light itself, yes, but once again it does not follow from this that the indication of the intrinsic property and the intrinsic property itself are equivalent.

I disagree with your first statement here. The word or name "red" describes or indicates a certain property of light that we name color. Neither the word "red" nor "color" is the actual property of light but words that we use to refer to those properties.
As we all know wavelength is an intrinsic property of light that conveys the information value color and a specific wavelength has a specific informational value, a specific color.

So far no one as addressed or attempted to answer a question that I have repeatedly asked. I ask again; Just considering human beings and disregarding the rest of life, how or why did we develop the ability to perceive and to see color if it were not an intrinsic part of our external world and carries or is information vital to our survival?

[Pseudonym]

I just went skiing, and had a thought that might produce interesting discussion. I wore a purple pair of ski goggles, and at first everything appeared tinted purple. After a while, my brain adjusted (or my blue and red sensing neurons got tired, whatever) and colors appeared pretty normal again. How does this fact relate to color perception?

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Royce
Given a reference point and the units used the numbers of any and all points in any system are inherent to that point and no other point in that reference system.

This is not a reflection of what the word "inherent" means. "Inherent" means "existing as an essential constituent or characteristic"; if some 'thing' T possesses an inherent property P, then P can properly be said to belong to T regardless of the naming conventions we use. This is because if P really is inherent to T, then it does not arise as the result of an arbitrary naming convention, but rather transcends such naming conventions-- P will be a property of T no matter what we choose to call it.

For example, say we have a certain place X located at lattitude 30 and longitude 40 (denote this as (30, 40)). Now say that under a different coordinate system, X is located at (Q, zorky). You should agree that (30, 40) is no more inherent to X than is (Q, zorky); both are arbitrary conventions we use for describing X, and neither coordinate is itself inherent to X. At best, both coordinates represent an inherent property (I say "at best" because it is arguable if location is actually an inherent property-- although this is largely irrelevant to the point I am making here). Again, it is critical to distinguish between representation and identity.

So far no one as addressed or attempted to answer a question that I have repeatedly asked. I ask again; Just considering human beings and disregarding the rest of life, how or why did we develop the ability to perceive and to see color if it were not an intrinsic part of our external world and carries or is information vital to our survival?

No one has suggested that color does not carry information about the external world. Again, what has been suggested is this: color certainly does represent properties of the external world, but from this it does not follow that color is a property of the external world. This is a critical point that you just cannot seem to accept, although it should be obviously true upon some reflection. Until you accept this distinction between representation and identity, our discussion cannot meaningfully proceed.

[Royce]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
This is not a reflection of what the word "inherent" means. "Inherent" means "existing as an essential constituent or characteristic"; if some 'thing' T possesses an inherent property P, then P can properly be said to belong to T regardless of the naming conventions we use. This is because if P really is inherent to T, then it does not arise as the result of an arbitrary naming convention, but rather transcends such naming conventions-- P will be a property of T no matter what we choose to call it.

For example, say we have a certain place X located at lattitude 30 and longitude 40 (denote this as (30, 40)). Now say that under a different coordinate system, X is located at (Q, zorky). You should agree that (30, 40) is no more inherent to X than is (Q, zorky); both are arbitrary conventions we use for describing X, and neither coordinate is itself inherent to X. At best, both coordinates represent an inherent property (I say "at best" because it is arguable if location is actually an inherent property-- although this is largely irrelevant to the point I am making here). Again, it is critical to distinguish between representation and identity.

I meant that the numbers are inherent to the reference system because no matter which system used every point has one unique set of numbers or coordinates and every set of coordinates describe one unique point and no point can be described or located without a complete set of coordinates in any system. In other words the coordinates are an inherent part of the system.

I can't see how location can be an inherent property at all as location is always relative, relative to another given, known point.

No one has suggested that color does not carry information about the external world. Again, what has been suggested is this: color certainly does represent properties of the external world, but from this it does not follow that color is a property of the external world. This is a critical point that you just cannot seem to accept, although it should be obviously true upon some reflection. Until you accept this distinction between representation and identity, our discussion cannot meaningfully proceed.

hypnagogue, the above is not "a critical point" is the point that I am arguing and attempting to support. If I give up on this point I give up on the entire subject of this thread. BTW I could just as easily say the same thing about your argument.

I said in my opening post in this thread that color is intrinsic and not assigned. I meant that color is a real part of the real world about us, an inherent part or property of objective reality.

We see the metal gold as having the color gold because that is the inherent or intrinsic color property or value of the metal gold. It is not gold because we perceive it and assign it the color gold; but, we see it as the color gold because that is the color of the metal gold in objective reality. We see it or anything as we see it because that is the way it is in reality, within the limits of our senses.

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Royce
I meant that the numbers are inherent to the reference system because no matter which system used every point has one unique set of numbers or coordinates and every set of coordinates describe one unique point and no point can be described or located without a complete set of coordinates in any system. In other words the coordinates are an inherent part of the system.

The coordinates are an inherent part of our description of the actual system. They are not an inherent part of the actual system itself. Once again you have conflated a representation with the thing being represented.

If I give up on this point I give up on the entire subject of this thread.

Quite correct. But unfortunately it seems you have little logical choice but to give it up. Representation is not identity.

Your position is not much better than saying that language is an inherent property of reality. For any objection you can come up with to the claim "the word 'chair' is inherent to actual chairs," I can offer you a rebuttal of your objection using your own logic.

But clearly the word "chair" is something generated by human brains rather than something to be found outside the mind (as is color), and clearly we could use the French word "chaise" to represent an actual chair and it would be no more or less valid than the English word (just as we could use this color to represent a light of wavelength 600nm and it would be no more or less valid than using this color), and clearly we recognize that even though the word "chair" represents an actual chair, that does not mean that it is actually inherent to the chair itself. For all of these reasons we should conclude that the word chair is not inherent to actual chairs but rather is inherent to a linguistic representation of them, and by the same token we should conclude that this color is not inherent to actual roses but rather to a phenomenal representation of them.

[Royce]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
The coordinates are an inherent part of our description of the actual system. They are not an inherent part of the actual system itself. Once again you have conflated a representation with the thing being represented.

All such systems are artificial and mental constructs of the human mind. They are subjective systems and not real. The coordinates are a part of the system and do not represent anything but the relative system coordinates of a point in space within that system. The coordinates of that point describe the location of that point within that system in relation to the origin in units of the system.
In so far as the coordinates describe the location, you are correct that they are not inherent to that location. In so far as the coordinates enumerate the number of system units that the point is in a given direction from the origin, the coordinates are an included part of the system. Do away with the system and the coordinates are done away with. Do away with the coordinates and the system becomes useless and meaningless. In this way, I say that the coordinates and the coordinate system are inherent in and to the system. It is splitting hairs and we disagree only because of our different view points.


Quite correct. But unfortunately it seems you have little logical choice but to give it up. Representation is not identity.

Your position is not much better than saying that language is an inherent property of reality. For any objection you can come up with to the claim "the word 'chair' is inherent to actual chairs," I can offer you a rebuttal of your objection using your own logic.

But clearly the word "chair" is something generated by human brains rather than something to be found outside the mind (as is color), and clearly we could use the French word "chaise" to represent an actual chair and it would be no more or less valid than the English word (just as we could use this color to represent a light of wavelength 600nm and it would be no more or less valid than using this color), and clearly we recognize that even though the word "chair" represents an actual chair, that does not mean that it is actually inherent to the chair itself. For all of these reasons we should conclude that the word chair is not inherent to actual chairs but rather is inherent to a linguistic representation of them, and by the same token we should conclude that this color is not inherent to actual roses but rather to a phenomenal representation of them.

I think our disagreement, or better our inability to agree, goes far beyond color or even value. Our difference lies in the fundamentals of two different philosophies. I could take it all the way back to Aristotle and Plato; but, it is today in reductionistic
and holistic thinking.
To my way of thinking reductionism is a tool, a broad spectrum but not universal tool to be used to accomplish a specific task not to be applied to all of existence all the time. If it is used universally it goes to far and we lose sight of what it is that we are looking at.
A forest is made of trees. Trees are made of cells. Cells are made of molecules. Molecules are made of atoms. Atoms are made of electrons, protons and neutrons. protons and neutrons are made of quarks. I don't know what quarks are made of but strings probably come in somewhere around here and strings or nothing but energy vibrating in its own dimension and not matter at all. So the forest does not exist as matter. Yet I can go out and spend a day walking in a forest that I know exists and is real despite the fact that it doesn't, according to physics, exist at all as matter but only mathematical, multi-dimensional energy fields.
I say color is real and part of the real world we live in because I see a red rose because the rose is red, You say I don't see anything but wavelengths and neither the rose nor red exists in reality but I only perceive it to be because of the electro-chemical processes in the neurons within my brain. Bullsh*t, I don't know what you see or don't see' when I look at a red rose I see a red rose because it is a red rose and that is logical to me. As Gertrude Stein said; "A rose is a rose is a rose."
I don't know about you but I'm done with this thread. I have said all that I can say on the subject and once again we agree to disagree.
Thanks to all for all of your responses.

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Royce
I say color is real and part of the real world we live in because I see a red rose because the rose is red, You say I don't see anything but wavelengths and neither the rose nor red exists in reality but I only perceive it to be because of the electro-chemical processes in the neurons within my brain.

That is a wildly inaccurate depiction of my position.

I never denied that either red or roses exist. Red exists and the rose exists. The difference is that red exists as a property of your subjective model of the rose, not as a property of the objective rose itself. To say a property is not inherent to some object is not to say that the property does not exist. It only states that the property is dissociated in some way from the object; that is to say, the two are linked not by necessity but by contingent circumstance.

Nor have I said that you don't see anything but wavelengths. In fact, you don't subjectively see wavelengths at all. What you see is the color red, which your mind uses to represent a certain wavelength.

No wonder we haven't gotten anywhere in this discussion. You are not arguing with the concepts inherent to my position, but instead you are arguing with your inaccurate subjective model of my position. [6)]

[Royce]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
That is a wildly inaccurate depiction of my position.

I never denied that either red or roses exist. Red exists and the rose exists. The difference is that red exists as a property of your subjective model of the rose, not as a property of the objective rose itself. To say a property is not inherent to some object is not to say that the property does not exist. It only states that the property is dissociated in some way from the object; that is to say, the two are linked not by necessity but by contingent circumstance.

No, you didn't. You are correct in that and I misstated my understanding of your position. I apolagize. You did state, however, that color does not exist in objective reality did you not, or did I misunderstand that too?
I do not understand how something, color, can be a property of our subjective model but not a property of the objective rose itself. To me that implies that we are making up or inventing properties for our models of objective reality. This is not perceiving information sensed to create an accurate model of objective reality, which would be an important survival tactic but making it up in our heads which could be dangerous.


Nor have I said that you don't see anything but wavelengths. In fact, you don't subjectively see wavelengths at all. What you see is the color red, which your mind uses to represent a certain wavelength.

I agree that you did not say that in so many words. As I understand your position is that we sense certain objective wavelengths and as a result sujectively "see" the color red to represent those wave lengths. Thus it is your position, as I understand it, that the color red does not exist in objective reality. This is the crux of our disagreement. I am saying that those objective specific wavelengths are the way that light carries the information, color, and that information is originated by the source; i.e. if the objective rose is red, it reflects light or a certain wavelength corresponding to red. our eyes detect this wavelength and send the information to our brains/minds where we correctly and subjectively see the rose as red. Red is an objective intrinsic and inherent property of that specific rose.


No wonder we haven't gotten anywhere in this discussion. You are not arguing with the concepts inherent to my position, but instead you are arguing with your inaccurate subjective model of my position. [6)]

This is probably the truest thing you have said in this thread. I am having a lot of trouble seeing the reasoning behind your distinctions.
To me you seem to have been inconsistant, one time saying that color does not exit and another time that we see color subjectively but not as aresult of seeing objective color, yet we are not making it up as it is a representation of a property, but not the real thing. In another thread you said that color is intrinsic to objective reality; but that that statement does not apply here.
Seriously, I do think that this last post cleared up most of my misunderstanding of your position; but, we still disagree.

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Royce
No, you didn't. You are correct in that and I misstated my understanding of your position. I apolagize. You did state, however, that color does not exist in objective reality did you not, or did I misunderstand that too?

Well, if we consider subjective experience to be a subset of objective reality, then it trivially follows that color exists in objective reality. But let's not get caught up in that potentially confusing issue. What I meant to say is that, for instance, the color red is not a property of an objective ("out there") rose but rather is a property of our subjective ("in here") models of the rose.

I do not understand how something, color, can be a property of our subjective model but not a property of the objective rose itself. To me that implies that we are making up or inventing properties for our models of objective reality. This is not perceiving information sensed to create an accurate model of objective reality, which would be an important survival tactic but making it up in our heads which could be dangerous.

A good model does not need to be an exact duplicate of the thing it is modeling. After all, the notion of "model" itself implies that the model is different in several ways from the thing it is modelling, but is similar in all the relevant ways, whatever those relevant ways might be.

For humans, the relevance of subjective models is to reliably represent information that exists in the "outside" objective world, for survival purposes. In order to reliably represent information, the properties of subjective models need to be isomorphic to the information they represent. There just needs to be a reliable, consistent mapping from objective reality to subjective experience. What is important is not the nature of the subjective experience, but how reliably the subjective experience maps onto objective reality.

Say I live in a very simple world. In this world, there are only two types of things: resources and dangers. If resources are around, I can survive and procreate; if danger is around, I will get hurt or die. Resources and dangers are never present in the same area, so I can only encounter one or the other at a particular time.

So it is imperative just that I am able to reliably detect the presence of resources or danger. Suppose that resources always reflect light of wavelength X and dangers always reflect light of wavelength Y. Further suppose that my brain is so simple that I can only subjectively experience this color (call it R) and this color (call it blue). OK, so given all this, how can I create a reliable model of the simple world I live in so that I can survive and procreate and not get hurt or die?

Well, all my simple brain needs to do is create a reliable mapping or isomorphism such that whenever wavelength X is around I will see one color, and whenever wavelength Y is around I will see the other. If my brain always associates Y (dangers) with R and X (resources) with B, I will be able to happily navigate my way around and live a long, successful life. Likewise, I will do just fine if I always associate Y with B and X with R (the opposite of the previous scenario). Either set of associations will be an accurate depiction of objective reality, since in either case I always know that one color indicates a certain kind of object and that the other color indicates the other kind.

Again, it doesn't matter whether or not R or B are actually properties of resources and dangers themselves from my standpoint. All that matters is that I consistently associate one with one color, and the other with the other color, so that I will be able to consistently and reliably avoid danger and seek resources based on the colors I see.

This is probably the truest thing you have said in this thread. I am having a lot of trouble seeing the reasoning behind your distinctions.
To me you seem to have been inconsistant, one time saying that color does not exit and another time that we see color subjectively but not as aresult of seeing objective color, yet we are not making it up as it is a representation of a property, but not the real thing. In another thread you said that color is intrinsic to objective reality; but that that statement does not apply here.

I believe that subjective experience may in some way be an inherent and irreducible property of objective reality. However, in the case of a human perceiving a rose, the physical system that the color red is best associated with is the human's brain, not the rose itself.

[Royce]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
Well, if we consider subjective experience to be a subset of objective reality, then it trivially follows that color exists in objective reality. But let's not get caught up in that potentially confusing issue. What I meant to say is that, for instance, the color red is not a property of an objective ("out there") rose but rather is a property of our subjective ("in here") models of the rose.

Well, at least we agree on something, though I don't think of the subjective as a subset but more one of the aspects or realms of one reality. This, I realize, can be thought of as a subset; but, I think of subsets as being more distinctly different or set off from rather than merely another facet or aspect of the one set which I call reality.



A good model does not need to be an exact duplicate of the thing it is modeling. After all, the notion of "model" itself implies that the model is different in several ways from the thing it is modeling, but is similar in all the relevant ways, whatever those relevant ways might be.

Yes, this much is obvious; however, a model is modeled after something. A model uses reality to make the model and if it is accurate it is a true replica of the real object. If color were not and intrinsic part of that real object the any colored model would not be a true model but enhanced.
Again When I look at a red rose, I see a red rose because the rose is red not because I invent or makeup the color red.
Assuming that life evolved on earth and was not created, life could only take advantage of and use only that which was/is already there.
If color did not actually exist in reality Then how could life ever develop the ability to see and perceive color?




Well, all my simple brain needs to do is create a reliable mapping or isomorphism such that whenever wavelength X is around I will see one color, and whenever wavelength Y is around I will see the other. If my brain always associates Y (dangers) with R and X (resources) with B, I will be able to happily navigate my way around and live a long, successful life. Likewise, I will do just fine if I always associate Y with B and X with R (the opposite of the previous scenario). Either set of associations will be an accurate depiction of objective reality, since in either case I always know that one color indicates a certain kind of object and that the other color indicates the other kind.

Here is where we disagree and I say that you are carrying reduction too far and losing sight of the actual value. A specific wavelength is a specific color. This is an identity in my mind.
Wavelength=color=wavelength. It is the way science identifies color and the way that they refer to color. Red light has a wavelength of 600nm; light with a wavelength of 600nm is red. I know that you don't buy that as it is to simple and not completely reduced to its lowest level.
How about this, wavelength is information representing the color of the source whether the light is emitted or reflected by the source.
This way the color of the light is a representation and not actually color. This agrees at least in part with what you have said previously. But, the light had to get its color information, wavelength, from somewhere and that somewhere is the source. It is the actual real intrinsic color of the object that gives the light its wavelength. If this is not true what determines the wavelength of light? It's physical properties? Okay, that physical property is it's color.


I believe that subjective experience may in some way be an inherent and irreducible property of objective reality. However, in the case of a human perceiving a rose, the physical system that the color red is best associated with is the human brain, not the rose itself.

I agree with the first sentence. The second sentence is backward thinking. Here you have the human brain determining the color of the rose , not the color of the rose determining what our human brains see and perceive. How would we know that the rose was red, not pink white or yellow unless it was determined by the color property of the rose.
Of course if you believe that there is no objective reality but it is all perceived subjective illusion then we are not even in the same book much less on the same page. If that is the case belay everything after "DUH?" and have a nice day! [;)]

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Royce
A specific wavelength is a specific color. This is an identity in my mind.
Wavelength=color=wavelength.

You are simply taking your position for granted at the start with no argument to back it up. This is called circular reasoning, or begging the question. If you insist on using circular reasoning there's no point in continuing the discussion.

[Royce]

"It is widely accepted that conscious experience has a physical basis. That is, the properties of experience (phenomenal properties , or qualia) systematically depend on physical properties according to some lawful relation."
"Specifically, I defend a principle of organizational invariance, holding that experience is invarient across systems with the same fine-grained functional organization. More precisely, the principle states that given any system that has conscious experiences, then any system that has the same functional organization at a fine enough grain will have qualitatively identical conscious experiences." Chalmers 1995

The first quote applies directly to what I have been saying all along. We perceive and experience color, because it depends on physical properties, the physical prporties of the souce of light that we view. That physical property is color that causes the light to have the specific physical property or wavelength that is an informational representation of the color of the source. The color of the source is a physical property of the source and therefore intrinsic to the source.
The second quote goes to our perceptions. If we accept Chalmer's principle of organizational invariance then it follows that my experience of perceiving red is qualitatively the same as your experience of seeing red. That is, if our eyes detect the same wavelenght of light we will both be seeing the same color. Any deviation of this indicates a difference of funtional organization rather than a difference of qualia.

(Yes, I finally got around to reading The links to Chalmers two articles.)

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Royce
We perceive and experience color, because it depends on physical properties, the physical prporties of the souce of light that we view.

It depends on the properties of the source of light AND the properties of the system that perceives the light.

That physical property is color that causes the light to have the specific physical property or wavelength that is an informational representation of the color of the source. The color of the source is a physical property of the source and therefore intrinsic to the source.

Again you beg the question. You are still just assuming that color is inherent to the light itself. What reason do you have to support this claim? (Restating your position does not count as support.)

I claim that color is better described as a property of the brain. Here are two reasons I have to support my claim:

1) Stimulating certain portions of the brain leads to the perception of certain colors, regardless of the presence or absence of light. This clearly presents a case where color perception is dependent on brain function, not properties of light.

2) Although this has not been proven yet, we have very good reason to believe that if the brain were wired differently, it would see light of 600nm wavelength as some color other than this one. Again, what we have here is dependence of color on brain structure and function, not on properties of light.

Insofar as we have reason to believe that perceived color is dependent most fundamentally on brain function and not properties of light, we have reason to believe that if color is inherent to anything here, it is the brain and not light.

The second quote goes to our perceptions. If we accept Chalmer's principle of organizational invariance then it follows that my experience of perceiving red is qualitatively the same as your experience of seeing red. That is, if our eyes detect the same wavelenght of light we will both be seeing the same color. Any deviation of this indicates a difference of funtional organization rather than a difference of qualia.

Fair enough. So you are conceding that perceived color depends on functional organization of the brain, not a property of light? This is a point against your argument, not for it.

[Royce]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
It depends on the properties of the source of light AND the properties of the system that perceives the light.

Again you beg the question. You are still just assuming that color is inherent to the light itself. What reason do you have to support this claim? (Restating your position does not count as support.)


I cannot at this time provide references; however, I can only restate that both science and technology refer to light of a specific wavelength has or is a specific color. This is used in both color television and in photography as well as the well known red shift of light from distant galaxies due to the expansion of the universe. There are many other such instances where scienc and scientist refer to light as having color. I am no longer insisting that this is the case but I am claiming that color is information carried by light via it's wavelength and correctly perceived by us as color. The source of this information is the intrinsic physical property of the source of the light. The color of the source determines the wavelength of the light that we see and perceive as color, the color of the source.


I claim that color is better described as a property of the brain. Here are two reasons I have to support my claim:

1) Stimulating certain portions of the brain leads to the perception of certain colors, regardless of the presence or absence of light. This clearly presents a case where color perception is dependent on brain function, not properties of light.

No, it merely indicates what we already know that the brain is wire to and capable of perceiving color. Our experiencing color is dependent on brain function but our brains in this case is responding to stimuli which simulates the stimuli from our retina. This is true of all of our senses. If you position were true the color would be an invention and creation of our brains and not information from external objective reality. Yet science is able to experiment with and use color to collect empirical knowledge about the objective reality called the universe.


2) Although this has not been proven yet, we have very good reason to believe that if the brain were wired differently, it would see light of 600nm wavelength as some color other than this one. Again, what we have here is dependence of color on brain structure and function, not on properties of light.

And if our brains were wired differently, dysfunctional or injured it would and on occasion does perceive light as small or taste. This violates Chalmers organizational invariance principles which is why I quoted it. It our brains are not organized the same way then there can be no comparison as it would be comparing apples and oranges.

Insofar as we have reason to believe that perceived color is dependent most fundamentally on brain function and not properties of light, we have reason to believe that if color is inherent to anything here, it is the brain and not light.



Fair enough. So you are conceding that perceived color depends on functional organization of the brain, not a property of light? This is a point against your argument, not for it.

No, I am say just what Chalmers says that so long as we have qualitatively identical functional organization, we perceive the same things when given the same input. This was as I said included to counter you above statement. It supports my position because it is saying that we all perceive color in the same way and that it is common to all sighted people. As a common trait among humans it supports the position that it was evolved to gather information about our environment and not simply to liven up our dreams and hallucinations.

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Royce
If you position were true the color would be an invention and creation of our brains

True.

and not information from external objective reality.

False.

Is it information from external reality that gets to us in a direct sense? No. In an indirect sense? Yes.

Color is a creation of our brains, but that still does not preclude it from REPRESENTING information existing in external reality. Color is not literally a property of light, but perceived color as generated by the brain is MODULATED ISOMORPHICALLY in step with information that comes from external reality, and so it creates a reliable representation. You don't seem to be getting this point but I'm running out of ways to say it.

Let's try it this way. You know those 2 dimensional maps that use different colors to represent depth? Well, I'm saying that the way the brain models reality using color works a little bit like that. In both cases what we have are models of reality: one model is a map printed on a sheet of paper, the other model is an individual's subjective experience.

In the case of the map, the colors of a mountain range as they appear on the map are not intrinsic properties of the externally existing mountain in any direct sense; instead, they are arbitrary creations nontheless used very effectively to represent altitude in an indirect way.

Likewise, in the case of the brain, the colors perceived in the visual field are not intrinsic properties of externally existing light waves in any direct sense; instead, they are arbitrary creations nonetheless used very effectively to represent wavelength in an indirect way.

[Royce]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
True.



False.

Is it information from external reality that gets to us in a direct sense? No. In an indirect sense? Yes.

Color is a creation of our brains, but that still does not preclude it from REPRESENTING information existing in external reality. Color is not literally a property of light, but perceived color as generated by the brain is MODULATED ISOMORPHICALLY in step with information that comes from external reality, and so it creates a reliable representation. You don't seem to be getting this point but I'm running out of ways to say it.

I do understand and I not only get your point but concede and agree with it as far as it goes. All that I am saying, in taking you point one step further, is that the information coming from external reality is the effect of the intrinsic property of the color of the source, the ultimate cause whose ultimate effect is, so far as we are concerned, our perception of color. I maintain that we see color because color exists and is important information about our external reality. Call it what you may it is still in essence color and it is an intrinsic part of objective reality that life evolved to use and take advantage of as it has all resources of informational and material importance to it, life itself.


Let's try it this way. You know those 2 dimensional maps that use different colors to represent depth? Well, I'm saying that the way the brain models reality using color works a little bit like that. In both cases what we have are models of reality: one model is a map printed on a sheet of paper, the other model is an individual's subjective experience.

In the case of the map, the colors of a mountain range as they appear on the map are not intrinsic properties of the externally existing mountain in any direct sense; instead, they are arbitrary creations nonetheless used very effectively to represent altitude in an indirect way.

Likewise, in the case of the brain, the colors perceived in the visual field are not intrinsic properties of externally existing light waves in any direct sense; instead, they are arbitrary creations nonetheless used very effectively to represent wavelength in an indirect way.

Agreed but the fact remains that while we do use the colors to represent height it is an actual real part of the map because we put it there on the map. It may represent something else to us but it is still real and it is still color. This is only an indication of how useful color is to us and our understanding. It is so much a part or our life and environment we use it to indicate and represent so many other things such as red for stop and/or danger, white for purity etc. Our brains did not make this up but simply makes use of it.
The reason you feel that I don't get it and the reason I feel that you don't get it is that we are working and discussing from two separate paradigms or philosophical positions that are not reconcilable. We will never agree so long as we hold such diametrically opposed positions.

I thank you for participating and putting up such a good argument and making me think and come up with counter arguments. I have enjoyed and appreciate it but I have nothing new or more to say other than good job and thank you again.

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Royce
Agreed but the fact remains that while we do use the colors to represent height it is an actual real part of the map because we put it there on the map.

Just like colors are an actual real part of our conscious experience. I never argued that colors are not real. The point of my analogy was to note that in the case of the map, the colors belong to the map and not to the mountain itself. Likewise, colors in our conscious experience belong to our conscious experience and not to light waves themselves.

[Royce]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
Just like colors are an actual real part of our conscious experience. I never argued that colors are not real. The point of my analogy was to note that in the case of the map, the colors belong to the map and not to the mountain itself. Likewise, colors in our conscious experience belong to our conscious experience and not to light waves themselves.

........

(I'm letting you get in the last word. I have nothing more or new to say. Thanks.)