Color's Intrinsic Nature: Light, Perception & Information

[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[/color] to represent a light of wavelength 600nm and it would be no more or less valid than using this color[/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[/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[/color] to represent a light of wavelength 600nm and it would be no more or less valid than using this color[/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[/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.

 

[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.

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[/color] (call it R) and this color[/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[/color]. 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[/color]. 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.)