Colour

Split from 'Non-human animals as moral subjects'

on fundamental matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind and ethics.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Colour

#721  Postby GrahamH » Aug 08, 2017 8:40 pm

SpeedOfSound wrote:
romansh wrote:
But is the surface itself red in the same way I perceive it?

There are no separable things in the above sentence. There is no way for the bus to be red without you perceiving it.


Amen brother.

The red you perceive is your perception that refers to the spectral emission from the bus. It correlates. It refers. It's something your brain has evaluated and attributed as experience'. The self is seeing red bus. You can't separate the red from the self in relation to the bus. you can't paint a bus with perceived red (despite what jamest will tell you about orchestrated qualia).

It's all physical making pictures (illusions if you like) of technicolor subjectivity to make sense of it all.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20399

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Colour

#722  Postby GrahamH » Aug 08, 2017 8:46 pm

romansh wrote:
Again I am simply asking is the bus's surface the same red as I perceive and if so why?


No. The question is a category error. Pigment on a surface is not neural classification of spectra. How could they possibly be 'the same'? Are they well correlated? Yes of course. In that sense you accurately identify the bus as red. You can functionally discriminate like and contrasted colours.

Consider that you measure the colour of the bus with an instrument that gives RGB readings of 200,15,9. Can you ask 'Is the surface of the bus the same as 200,15,9? Surely not. You can use the values to compare colours of other objects. You know the readings will change is the illuminating light spectra changes. The values are only a reference to the paint, a perception of colour, not a pigment on a surface. Ditto with your perception of colour.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20399

Print view this post

Re: Colour

#723  Postby romansh » Aug 08, 2017 8:51 pm

GrahamH wrote:
romansh wrote:
Again I am simply asking is the bus's surface the same red as I perceive and if so why?


No. The question is a category error. Pigment on a surface is not neural classification of spectra. How could they possibly be 'the same'? Are they well correlated? Yes of course. In that sense you accurately identify the bus as red. You can functionally discriminate like and contrasted colours.

So are you saying the red I perceive is not the same as the surface of the bus? How could they be? I am saying the same thing or at least trying to.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
User avatar
romansh
 
Posts: 2744

Country: BC Can (in the woods)
Print view this post

Re: Colour

#724  Postby GrahamH » Aug 08, 2017 8:54 pm

romansh wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
romansh wrote:
Again I am simply asking is the bus's surface the same red as I perceive and if so why?


No. The question is a category error. Pigment on a surface is not neural classification of spectra. How could they possibly be 'the same'? Are they well correlated? Yes of course. In that sense you accurately identify the bus as red. You can functionally discriminate like and contrasted colours.

So are you saying the red I perceive is not the same as the surface of the bus? How could they be? I am saying the same thing or at least trying to.


You are best placed to know what you mean by the question. It seems we probably agree. The question doesn't seem coherent to me. Your perception of red is not itself on the surface of the bus.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20399

Print view this post

Re: Colour

#725  Postby romansh » Aug 08, 2017 9:08 pm

GrahamH wrote:
You are best placed to know what you mean by the question. It seems we probably agree. The question doesn't seem coherent to me. Your perception of red is not itself on the surface of the bus.

I have a perception of red (most of us do).
I have a perception that the bus is red (I think most of us do).
I think the bus exists and has a surface at least what passes for a surface.

I am trying to ask how accurate a representation is my red perception, of the bus's surface?

I am not claiming perception is on the surface.

Similarly we ask how accurate is a spectrophotometer 640 nm reading from the surface? Well it is the light reflecting from the surface. So what is the surface, red at the 640 wavelength?

And yet when I look at the bus surface, I definitely have a perception of redness. The surface is no more my perception than it is 640 nm. I am not trying to throw doubt on the physics ... just on my perception.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
User avatar
romansh
 
Posts: 2744

Country: BC Can (in the woods)
Print view this post

Re: Colour

#726  Postby GrahamH » Aug 09, 2017 7:52 am

romansh wrote:
I am trying to ask how accurate a representation is my red perception, of the bus's surface?



You can test your ability to discriminate colour.

Here's a way to experiment yourself. https://www.quora.com/How-many-colors-c ... istinguish

Estimates of how many colours humans can distinguish seem to vary from one to ten million.

In terms of hue alone I've seen 150 suggested.

I think you are asking if you could see the difference in colour between the red bus and a similar red.

Did I post this earlier?

Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20399

Print view this post

Re: Colour

#727  Postby SpeedOfSound » Aug 09, 2017 12:02 pm

romansh wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
...
I think the bus exists and has a surface at least what passes for a surface.

I am trying to ask how accurate a representation is my red perception, of the bus's surface?
...

So that is what I am pushing back on. If you have normal color vision, and even in some respect if you do not, your perception of the surface of the bus is highly accurate. It's REALLY out there and it is REALLY red. Of course it is really a lot of other things to a lot of other creatures and things as well.

If I am a boulder rolling down a hill and I catch on a bigger boulder than I have 'perceived' the boulder accurately.

The thing that does not exist is those green and red strawberry percept-o-plasms in that video Graham posted. Those are the spooks. If you believe in those spooks then you will start thinking that what you perceive is not really there. Or that I perceive strawberries in a different manner than you do. If we can see red we all see red in exactly the same way. This is because the strawberry is really red. If we have a color problem then things are a little different. We can't discriminate the red in the same way as our peers. So we can't quite feel the red that is really there.

Do you see how subtle and confusing all this is? How things like noumena may become a fad?

The failure occurs somewhere around where we come up with the idea of naive realism. We imagine that there is a reality perceivable that we are not quite getting. That we can exceed the boundaries of our organism and imagine that we are wrong.

The habit of doing that imagining of error is derived from something we naturally do each and every day. We close our eyes and we imagine that some thief has stolen into the room and we are wrong about not believing he is there. So above we extrapolate that doubt to when our eyes are full on open and we imagine an error that is not really there just like the thief is not really there.

There is no error. Reality is just as we perceive it because we and our perception are fully a part of the reality.

I think if I were ever able to read that boring fuck Kant, it would turn out that this is what he was really trying to get at. He sounds paradoxical occasionally and I think this is because we are getting the wrong message with this idea of an error in our perception.
User avatar
SpeedOfSound
RS Donator
 
Posts: 32084
Age: 69
Male

Kyrgyzstan (kg)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Colour

#728  Postby GrahamH » Aug 09, 2017 12:05 pm

SpeedOfSound wrote:
The thing that does not exist is those green and red strawberry percept-o-plasms in that video Graham posted. Those are the spooks.
:thumbup:

romansh had seemed to be asking that sort of question, but now I think the question is 'is my colour discrimination accurate?' which is a simpler 'yes'.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20399

Print view this post

Re: Colour

#729  Postby SpeedOfSound » Aug 09, 2017 12:49 pm

GrahamH wrote:
SpeedOfSound wrote:
The thing that does not exist is those green and red strawberry percept-o-plasms in that video Graham posted. Those are the spooks.
:thumbup:

romansh had seemed to be asking that sort of question, but now I think the question is 'is my colour discrimination accurate?' which is a simpler 'yes'.

When you listen to a narrative that starts out with doubt about perception and then ends up with nothing is real I always feel like I have been tricked somehow. Baboozled. It's sleight of mind and it seems to be done by focusing on this pervasive idea that percepts are somehow real objects in our heads.

But we know there is something in our heads when we are perceiving cuz we are physicalists. Being physicalists we believe what we perceive and one of the things we can perceive is a brain scan. Then comes the little twist. We are then asked to believe that this something real, that we know is there, in our heads, is one and the same with consciousness spook. The Green Strawberry that can be either green or red or whatever. Then the whole thing has shifted so that the thing in our heads somehow becomes more real than the thing that caused it to be in our heads.

I have always pointed out that if there is no red strawberry then surely there can be no in-our-heads to begin with and the entire argument pulls itself up by it's bootstrap and throws itself away.

This is the little trick that has fooled five hundred years of philosophers until Dan Dennett came along and leaked the 'magic'.
User avatar
SpeedOfSound
RS Donator
 
Posts: 32084
Age: 69
Male

Kyrgyzstan (kg)
Print view this post

Re: Colour

#730  Postby romansh » Aug 09, 2017 3:13 pm

GrahamH wrote:
I think you are asking if you could see the difference in colour between the red bus and a similar red.

No, I am not Graham.

I am asking is the surface of the bus actually/physically red? The physics of light and vision suggest not.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
User avatar
romansh
 
Posts: 2744

Country: BC Can (in the woods)
Print view this post

Re: Colour

#731  Postby GrahamH » Aug 09, 2017 3:22 pm

romansh wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
I think you are asking if you could see the difference in colour between the red bus and a similar red.

No, I am not Graham.

I am asking is the surface of the bus actually/physically red? The physics of light and vision suggest not.


Then I don't know what you mean. The physics of light suggest there are characteristics of the bus that play a large part in it looking red and the physics of light spectra can be compared between objects to discriminate on colour. The term 'physical colour' was used earlier and is an accurate discriminator. Our subjective experience of colour is closely correlated with that. Independent observers can agree on the relative intensities of red green and blue light. So why do you say "The physics of light and vision suggest not"? :scratch:
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20399

Print view this post

Re: Colour

#732  Postby romansh » Aug 09, 2017 3:27 pm

GrahamH wrote:
Did I post this earlier?



No you did not ... thanks
Did you have a problem with video calling colour an illusion?
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
User avatar
romansh
 
Posts: 2744

Country: BC Can (in the woods)
Print view this post

Re: Colour

#733  Postby GrahamH » Aug 09, 2017 3:43 pm

romansh wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
Did I post this earlier?



No you did not ... thanks
Did you have a problem with video calling colour an illusion?


I think I'm with SoS on this. 'physical colour', the physics of light and bus and visual system is a reliable discriminator of colour. The 'my red is like your red' spook inner mental world stuff is probably illusion. The bus isn't an illusion.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20399

Print view this post

Re: Colour

#734  Postby romansh » Aug 09, 2017 5:40 pm

GrahamH wrote:I think I'm with SoS on this. 'physical colour', the physics of light and bus and visual system is a reliable discriminator of colour. The 'my red is like your red' spook inner mental world stuff is probably illusion. The bus isn't an illusion.


Well I agree our perception of 'colour' is a reasonable discriminator of colour (or at least photon wavelengths) . That was never an issue.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
User avatar
romansh
 
Posts: 2744

Country: BC Can (in the woods)
Print view this post

Re: Colour

#735  Postby GrahamH » Aug 09, 2017 6:39 pm

romansh wrote:
GrahamH wrote:I think I'm with SoS on this. 'physical colour', the physics of light and bus and visual system is a reliable discriminator of colour. The 'my red is like your red' spook inner mental world stuff is probably illusion. The bus isn't an illusion.


Well I agree our perception of 'colour' is a reasonable discriminator of colour (or at least photon wavelengths) . That was never an issue.

Sorry, I'm lost. I don't know what you are asking.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20399

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Colour

#736  Postby The_Metatron » Aug 09, 2017 7:38 pm

What in hell is the point of this discussion?

We can, with some ease, determine if we agree if a particular color is or is not red, for example. Standards exist, and it's trivial to compare choices against standards.

Once that is achieved, and we agree that a bus is red, why do I give any further fucks what that means inside anyone else's head? Why would anyone be the least concerned with how red feels to someone else, so long as we agree on what red is?
I AM Skepdickus!

Check out Hack's blog, too. He writes good.
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 20944
Age: 57
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Colour

#737  Postby GrahamH » Aug 09, 2017 7:55 pm

The_Metatron wrote:What in hell is the point of this discussion?

We can, with some ease, determine if we agree if a particular color is or is not red, for example. Standards exist, and it's trivial to compare choices against standards.

Once that is achieved, and we agree that a bus is red, why do I give any further fucks what that means inside anyone else's head? Why would anyone be the least concerned with how red feels to someone else, so long as we agree on what red is?


The idea is to understand ourselves and the nature of 'reality. It's a philosophical conundrum. :scratch:
If you just want to be sure you get on the right bus you are wasting your time here even more than most of us.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20399

Print view this post

Re: Colour

#738  Postby laklak » Aug 09, 2017 8:32 pm

I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 20762
Age: 66
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: Colour

#739  Postby The_Metatron » Aug 09, 2017 10:57 pm

It's no conundrum. It's a problem that only lives in someone else's head, and nowhere else. A problem that has no consequence to any other thing.

Assume you could explain your conundrum. What now could you do?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I AM Skepdickus!

Check out Hack's blog, too. He writes good.
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 20944
Age: 57
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Colour

#740  Postby tuco » Aug 09, 2017 11:10 pm

There is always conundrum in the philosophy department :)
tuco
 
Posts: 15516

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest