Color's Intrinsic Nature: Light, Perception & Information

[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. 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. 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.

 

[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 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 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!

 

[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!

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 knowledgeable 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. 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]

ski goggles

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.

 

[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 (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.