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

#781  Postby jamest » Aug 14, 2017 11:21 pm

The_Metatron wrote:My wife was hanging laundry to dry just now. I watched her hanging a shirt that, by its color alone, I didn't recognize. It wasn't mine, but it is my size. Turns out it is a corporate giveaway from work, that I gave to my oldest son.

Cool thing, though. Neat demonstration that my model of reality (the colors of my shirts) is in color, and it worked to quickly realize that strangely colored shirt to be alien.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

What's really neat is that 'you' had no knowledge at all about the wavelength/frequency of the light coming from the shirt, but yet completely understood/recognised the colour of it.

Why do you think that is?
Il messaggero non e importante.
Ora non e importante.
Il resultato futuro e importante.
Quindi, persisto.
jamest
 
Posts: 18463
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Colour

#782  Postby The_Metatron » Aug 14, 2017 11:30 pm

Not quite.

I thought carefully about that. I compared its color against my internal model of the colors of the shirts I know are mine.


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: 20928
Age: 57
Male

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

Re: Colour

#783  Postby jamest » Aug 15, 2017 12:25 am

The_Metatron wrote:Not quite.

I thought carefully about that. I compared its color against my internal model of the colors of the shirts I know are mine.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You've either overlooked or dismissed my point, which is still pertinent to this overarching "internal model". I mean, your whole internal model was formed early from being a babe without any conscious knowledge of the wavelength/frequency of light [notwithstanding 'photons']. We completely understand/comprehend colours at a very early age, if not immediately, devoid of any scientific/technical knowledge/data.

What interests me is that neuroscience wants to account for our experiences in scientific terms, yet the brain itself apparently knows nothing about this information, judging by our [conscious] inability to explain wavelengths etc., as babes.

A child can have a complete understanding of colours yet be a retard when it comes to science. So what a child (or even an adult) 'sees' is not distinctions between the wavelengths etc. of photons. That's a fact, otherwise the brain would know this as THIS is what the materialist/physicalist insists what 'colour' amounts to!!!!!!!!!

How can 'we', being a phenomenon of the brain, be unable to acount for colour in terms of wavelength etc. [until we go to Harvard/Oxford, etc. and learn about such things] when the brain itself is providing colour experiences to itself grounded upon its understanding of photons/wavelengths etc.?

You can have no riposte to these questions, other than one grounded in the fact that the brain does not know what it's doing. Which, given that its "conscious child" does, raises further [significant] questions.

You may well have "thought carefully" about such matters, but it is obvious to me that you have never understood the depth to which these matters go.
Il messaggero non e importante.
Ora non e importante.
Il resultato futuro e importante.
Quindi, persisto.
jamest
 
Posts: 18463
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: Colour

#784  Postby GrahamH » Aug 15, 2017 7:21 am

jamest wrote:
The_Metatron wrote:Not quite.

I thought carefully about that. I compared its color against my internal model of the colors of the shirts I know are mine.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You've either overlooked or dismissed my point, which is still pertinent to this overarching "internal model". I mean, your whole internal model was formed early from being a babe without any conscious knowledge of the wavelength/frequency of light [notwithstanding 'photons']. We completely understand/comprehend colours at a very early age, if not immediately, devoid of any scientific/technical knowledge/data.

What interests me is that neuroscience wants to account for our experiences in scientific terms, yet the brain itself apparently knows nothing about this information, judging by our [conscious] inability to explain wavelengths etc., as babes.

A child can have a complete understanding of colours yet be a retard when it comes to science. So what a child (or even an adult) 'sees' is not distinctions between the wavelengths etc. of photons. That's a fact, otherwise the brain would know this as THIS is what the materialist/physicalist insists what 'colour' amounts to!!!!!!!!!

How can 'we', being a phenomenon of the brain, be unable to acount for colour in terms of wavelength etc. [until we go to Harvard/Oxford, etc. and learn about such things] when the brain itself is providing colour experiences to itself grounded upon its understanding of photons/wavelengths etc.?

You can have no riposte to these questions, other than one grounded in the fact that the brain does not know what it's doing. Which, given that its "conscious child" does, raises further [significant] questions.

You may well have "thought carefully" about such matters, but it is obvious to me that you have never understood the depth to which these matters go.


You got that backward. It's the 'mind' that is oblivious and the brain that deals with it having no need for "understanding of photons/wavelengths etc".
An instrument for measuring colour doesn't need "understanding of photons/wavelengths etc" it just needs to function in response to that stimulus.
Presumably colour perception is another thing you know 'the conscious mind' can't deal with and you push it out to the universal excuse of 'the subconscious mind'. Funny how you end up with just about all mental function outside consciousness awareness.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20399

Print view this post

Re: Colour

#785  Postby DavidMcC » Aug 15, 2017 9:19 am

jamest wrote:...
A child can have a complete understanding of colours yet be a retard when it comes to science. So what a child (or even an adult) 'sees' is not distinctions between the wavelengths etc. of photons. That's a fact, otherwise the brain would know this as THIS is what the materialist/physicalist insists what 'colour' amounts to!!!!!!!!!

...

What do you even mean by "a complete understanding of colours"? The child may be able to see all the colours that a typical person sees (ie, ROYGBIV), but understanding has to do with concepts, not percepts, which in turn are mainly a function of wavelength (with some distortions possible, due to the colour optical illusions already discussed.

You seem to think that anything claimed by a physicalist must be wrong, but the opposite of physicalist is religious fantasist!
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 67
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Colour

#786  Postby DavidMcC » Aug 15, 2017 9:50 am

scott1328 wrote:Red cannot be an illusion, if an illusion is defined as "not what it seems," and "red" is defined to be a label the mind attaches to a particular class of sensations.

However, it can be an illusion if an object is made to reflect only red light purely because it is bathed only in red light, and not because of its overall reflectivity spectrum being biassed towards red.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 67
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Colour

#787  Postby scott1328 » Aug 15, 2017 11:30 am

No. Graham put forward the definition of "red" as a label for a perception. Perception is merely a synonym for a "seeming". If red is merely a seeming and only a seeming, it can never be an illusion (not what it seems) that would be a contradiction in terms.

I am not defending that definition of red, (nor am I defending Romansh's definition of llusion);
User avatar
scott1328
 
Name: Some call me... Tim
Posts: 8675
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Colour

#788  Postby GrahamH » Aug 15, 2017 11:40 am

scott1328 wrote:No. Graham put forward the definition of "red" as a label for a perception. Perception is merely a synonym for a "seeming". If red is merely a seeming and only a seeming, it can never be an illusion (not what it seems) that would be a contradiction in terms.

I am not defending that definition of red, (nor am I defending Romansh's definition of llusion);


The idea that red is qualia experience had by a subject mind could be not as it seems / not as most understand it to be. It's something often taken to be a certainty. I suggested it could be a label for self seeing red bus which is subtly different to red bus. I think we tend to think we just see a red bus and we are an independent subjective observer having sensory experiences, which implies colour qualia and selves are in some sense separate real things, which may be an illusion, not as it seems / as we understand it to be.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20399

Print view this post

Re: Colour

#789  Postby DavidMcC » Aug 15, 2017 11:46 am

scott1328 wrote:No. Graham put forward the definition of "red" as a label for a perception. Perception is merely a synonym for a "seeming". If red is merely a seeming and only a seeming, it can never be an illusion (not what it seems) that would be a contradiction in terms.

I am not defending that definition of red, (nor am I defending Romansh's definition of llusion);

I think it depends on what the "illusion" actually concerns. I would certainly agree that a percept is not an illusion in terms of what colour is perceived, BUT it can be interms of the physical colour of the object being perceived. (I hope I don't have to go over the definition of "physical colour" again!)
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 67
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Colour

#790  Postby scott1328 » Aug 15, 2017 11:51 pm

No. It was a nonstarter the first time. No need to bring it up again
User avatar
scott1328
 
Name: Some call me... Tim
Posts: 8675
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Colour

#791  Postby DavidMcC » Aug 16, 2017 9:21 am

scott1328 wrote:No. It was a nonstarter the first time. No need to bring it up again


So, you think that the concept of physical colour (= spectral reflectance) is a non-starter??!
:rofl:
That's the funniest thing I've heard for weeks! You have beaten the fundies! Well done!
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 67
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Colour

#792  Postby The_Metatron » Aug 16, 2017 7:48 pm

For me, an illusion implies something that appears to be something else. For example, something that appears to be red, but isn't.

Unless I have it wrong, the only red thing is red light.


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: 20928
Age: 57
Male

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

Re: Colour

#793  Postby scott1328 » Aug 16, 2017 9:16 pm

The_Metatron wrote:For me, an illusion implies something that appears to be something else. For example, something that appears to be red, but isn't.

Unless I have it wrong, the only red thing is red light.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Image

So any perception of red in this photo is an illusion by your account?
User avatar
scott1328
 
Name: Some call me... Tim
Posts: 8675
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Colour

#794  Postby The_Metatron » Aug 16, 2017 9:33 pm

It wouldn't matter if that were a color photograph.


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: 20928
Age: 57
Male

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

Re: Colour

#795  Postby scott1328 » Aug 16, 2017 11:15 pm

That is a color photograph. There is not a single "red" pixel in it. Many people perceive red in it. So, the "red" they perceive by your account is an illusion. I am not challenging your take on what constitutes an illusion of color; I am exploring it.

You also said the only red thing is red light. So by extension, the color "burnt umber" is an illusion as is "harvest gold" and "fuchsia"

That goddam paint store owes me a refund.
User avatar
scott1328
 
Name: Some call me... Tim
Posts: 8675
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Colour

#796  Postby The_Metatron » Aug 17, 2017 1:15 am

Wasn't what was going on with those strawberries to do with how we build the entire picture in our head? You have an internal model of strawberries, and know they are red. In that one, we're filling in the missing color from our model. Or, trying to.


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: 20928
Age: 57
Male

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

Re: Colour

#797  Postby DavidMcC » Aug 17, 2017 9:24 am

scott1328 wrote:That is a color photograph. There is not a single "red" pixel in it. Many people perceive red in it. So, the "red" they perceive by your account is an illusion. I am not challenging your take on what constitutes an illusion of color; I am exploring it.

You also said the only red thing is red light. So by extension, the color "burnt umber" is an illusion as is "harvest gold" and "fuchsia"

That goddam paint store owes me a refund.

I don't see any red in it, only blue.

Hands up, who actually sees red strawberries in the picture?
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 67
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Colour

#798  Postby DavidMcC » Aug 17, 2017 10:34 am

The_Metatron wrote:Wasn't what was going on with those strawberries to do with how we build the entire picture in our head? You have an internal model of strawberries, and know they are red. In that one, we're filling in the missing color from our model. Or, trying to.
...

So, you actually see red stawberries in the photo??
So far, no-one else has admitted to that, so you're an unusual case, Met!

EDIT: Also, trying is not necessarily succeeding.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 67
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Colour

#799  Postby DavidMcC » Aug 17, 2017 10:41 am

scott1328 wrote:That is a color photograph. There is not a single "red" pixel in it. Many people perceive red in it. So, the "red" they perceive by your account is an illusion. I am not challenging your take on what constitutes an illusion of color; I am exploring it.

You also said the only red thing is red light. So by extension, the color "burnt umber" is an illusion as is "harvest gold" and "fuchsia"

That goddam paint store owes me a refund.

Can you name anyone who sees red strawberies in the picture? (People with a colour defect, either in their eye-brain system or their computer screen don't count!)

EDIT: I remember one guy on the original Dawkins site said that he had a damaged optic nerve, that made everything look tinted in that eye.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 67
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Colour

#800  Postby DavidMcC » Aug 17, 2017 10:53 am

... Also, if we always saw things the way we expected to see them, our colour vision would be of little use.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 67
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest