Calilasseia wrote:So my posting the scientific paper from Edwin Land here was a waste of time?

This is the philosophy sub-forum, Calilasseia, so I hope that was a rhetorical question.

This thread should probably be in the biogical sciences forum anyway. It was only left in philosophy by default, as it was a split from a "genuine" philososphy thread, after romansh made a strange post, linking the colour red to morality.

Calilasseia wrote:So my posting the scientific paper from Edwin Land here was a waste of time?

Not at all.
Personally I am not of the school of thought that science and philosophy are somehow separate.
Science relies on certain aspects of philosophy quite heavily.

Though I must admit philosophy does tackle rather esoteric subjects with which I might not bother.

edit
ps

Do you think objects themselves are the same colour physically as we perceive them?

zoon wrote:...I don’t think that the article romansch links to above from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is in any way attempting to correct modern science, or that the author is unaware of the science, ...

That is true, but romansh contradicted the SE, by claiming that there is "no colour in the environment", when the SE correctly states that there is physical colour in the environment (ie, wavelength-dendent reflectance spectra), and that this is the reason why we see colours, Unfortunately, he also claims that "there is no colour in the environmant", and the SE article goes on to regurgitate historic nonsense from philosophers through the ages, about how, because colour is detected in the brain, it is somehow unrelated to wavelength-dependent reflectance. In fact, subjective colours are subject to certain colour optical illusions, but that is only under certain circumstances, as I have described before, and does not invalidate the notion that perceived colours have their origin in the environment in the first instance, assuming there is no strong colour bias in it, due either to illumination issues, overall colour bias or strong proximity effects. (The strange illusions spossible on computer monitor screens are artifacts of the way TV/monitor screens work, which is quite diferent from the natural environment.

Calilasseia wrote:So my posting the scientific paper from Edwin Land here was a waste of time?

This problem is due to the fact that romansh mentioned the colour, red and morality in a single, strange post, in philosophy! The post was correctly split, but both remained in philosophy. Maybe the colour one should have been moved.

I'm going to have to read back through the thread and see if anyone ever bothered to define what color is before we started plinking away regarding where in the world it happens. Because this could be another time-waster like philosophizing about consciousness- where everyone involved accepts a very skeletal framework, then fleshes it out without bothering to share those details, and then spins their wheels endlessly because nobody actually knows what anyone else is talking about.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:I'm going to have to read back through the thread and see if anyone ever bothered to define what color is before we started plinking away regarding where in the world it happens. Because this could be another time-waster like philosophizing about consciousness- where everyone involved accepts a very skeletal framework, then fleshes it out without bothering to share those details, and then spins their wheels endlessly because nobody actually knows what anyone else is talking about.

I think you'll find I have - it has two aspects: the physical colour in the environment, which is perceived as subjective colour in the brain.

... Please don't take that as my "definition" of colour. For that. you need to read my previous posts.

DavidMcC wrote:... Please don't take that as my "definition" of colour. For that. you need to read my previous posts.

I'm not agonizing very much concerning your definition anyway, since we appear, in this thread at least, to be mostly in agreement.

Actually going back and looking for definitions will have to happen later, though, as my boss likes it when I work while I'm at work.

DavidMcC wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:So my posting the scientific paper from Edwin Land here was a waste of time?

This problem is due to the fact that romansh mentioned the colour, red and morality in a single, strange post, in philosophy! The post was correctly split, but both remained in philosophy. Maybe the colour one should have been moved.

The problem might be people just don't recognize the philosophical aspects of scientific reality?

And I think you are right, you dunno.

DavidMcC wrote:
I think you'll find I have - it has two aspects: the physical colour in the environment, which is perceived as subjective colour in the brain.

and

... Please don't take that as my "definition" of colour. For that. you need to read my previous posts.

So you don't think colour has two aspects or do you?

romansh wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:
I think you'll find I have - it has two aspects: the physical colour in the environment, which is perceived as subjective colour in the brain.

and

... Please don't take that as my "definition" of colour. For that. you need to read my previous posts.

So you don't think colour has two aspects or do you?

I mentioned the two aspects in the post you quoted: 1- the physical colour in the environment and 2 - the subjective perception of it in the brain (which starts with more-or-less objective colour detection in the retina, by the cones cells, but ends with possible modification in the VC, to improve edge visibility, for example.

DavidMcC wrote:[
1- the physical colour in the environment [of the object]
2 - the subjective perception of it in the brain

not italics my addition and what I am referring to ...

Now do you think 1 and 2 (the subjective experience and reality) are necessarily the same colour physically?
And how do you come to your conclusion?

romansh wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:[
1- the physical colour in the environment [of the object]
2 - the subjective perception of it in the brain

not italics my addition and what I am referring to ...

Now do you think 1 and 2 (the subjective experience and reality) are necessarily the same colour physically?
And how do you come to your conclusion?

I did NOT come to the conclusion that you seem to think I did, romansh. Nowhere did I say that the perceived colour was always the same as the physical colour, only that what you see is BASED on the physical colour. Indeed, I went out of my way in this thread to show that they are NOT necessarily the same - due to colour illusions. Now do you get it?

DavidMcC wrote:
I did NOT come to the conclusion that you seem to think I did, romansh. Nowhere did I say that the perceived colour was always the same as the physical colour, only that what you see is BASED on the physical colour. Indeed, I went out of my way in this thread to show that they are NOT necessarily the same - due to colour illusions. Now do you get it?

When is the perceived colour the same and when is it different?

romansh wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:
I did NOT come to the conclusion that you seem to think I did, romansh. Nowhere did I say that the perceived colour was always the same as the physical colour, only that what you see is BASED on the physical colour. Indeed, I went out of my way in this thread to show that they are NOT necessarily the same - due to colour illusions. Now do you get it?

When is the perceived colour the same and when is it different?

There is no such thing as physical colour of an object.

As I pointed out via the Land paper, 'colour' is simply a shorthand term we use to describe a phenomenon involving the interaction of multiple systems. First, the intrinsic reflectance of an object as measured under a suitably chosen reference illumination spectrum. Second, the difference between that reflectance and the reflectance of other objects in the visual field. Third, the nature of the illumination spectrum itself. Fourth, the manner in which the brain processes the raw data from the photons captured in the eye. That's a lot of different interactions being grouped together under one heading.

Calilasseia wrote:As I pointed out via the Land paper, 'colour' is simply a shorthand term we use to describe a phenomenon involving the interaction of multiple systems. First, the intrinsic reflectance of an object as measured under a suitably chosen reference illumination spectrum. Second, the difference between that reflectance and the reflectance of other objects in the visual field. Third, the nature of the illumination spectrum itself. Fourth, the manner in which the brain processes the raw data from the photons captured in the eye. That's a lot of different interactions being grouped together under one heading.

Now I wonder how many questions regarding color become silly when we take these factors into consideration?

Well, as soon as you inform us wtf he's talking about, maybe we can answer your question.