romansh wrote:Yes, yes I get it. The concepts of morality and ethics exist.

But then so does the concept of red. Whereas, red itself is a little more difficult to believe if we start thinking about physics and biochemistry associated with the experience of red.

...

You do not have to study or think about "red" to see it, therefore, "red" is not a concept (unless you are talking of linguistics rather than sensory biology).

EDIT: I apologise to the rest of the forum (except romansh) for this off-topic conversation about colour perception, but I was not the one to start it.

DavidMcC wrote:

romansh wrote:Yes, yes I get it. The concepts of morality and ethics exist.

But then so does the concept of red. Whereas, red itself is a little more difficult to believe if we start thinking about physics and biochemistry associated with the experience of red.

...

You do not have to study or think about "red" to see it, therefore, "red" is not a concept (unless you are talking of linguistics rather than sensory biology).

EDIT: I apologise to the rest of the forum (except romansh) for this off-topic conversation about colour perception, but I was not the one to start it.

When you see Red it is not the same thing as when I see it. Objectively you can measure the wavelengths of colours, but there is no exact point where red ends and orange, purple, Mauve, cyan, or pink begins, and people argue over where the dividing line ought to be. When we both identify red we are agreeing on a subjectively identified, but objectively decided set of values.
And in a very important sense these colours have absolutely NO scientific value at all.

Hobbes Choice wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

romansh wrote:Yes, yes I get it. The concepts of morality and ethics exist.

But then so does the concept of red. Whereas, red itself is a little more difficult to believe if we start thinking about physics and biochemistry associated with the experience of red.

...

You do not have to study or think about "red" to see it, therefore, "red" is not a concept (unless you are talking of linguistics rather than sensory biology).

EDIT: I apologise to the rest of the forum (except romansh) for this off-topic conversation about colour perception, but I was not the one to start it.

When you see Red it is not the same thing as when I see it. Objectively you can measure the wavelengths of colours, but there is no exact point where red ends and orange, purple, Mauve, cyan, or pink begins, and people argue over where the dividing line ought to be. When we both identify red we are agreeing on a subjectively identified, but objectively decided set of values.
And in a very important sense these colours have absolutely NO scientific value at all.

So what? All this is irrelevant to sensory perception, and is only related to the language of colour.

EDIT: We do not need any words to be able to perceive colour, only to be able to talk about it.

DavidMcC wrote:

When you see Red it is not the same thing as when I see it. Objectively you can measure the wavelengths of colours, but there is no exact point where red ends and orange, purple, Mauve, cyan, or pink begins, and people argue over where the dividing line ought to be. When we both identify red we are agreeing on a subjectively identified, but objectively decided set of values.
And in a very important sense these colours have absolutely NO scientific value at all.

So what? All this is irrelevant to sensory perception, and is only related to the language of colour.

EDIT: We do not need any words to be able to perceive colour, only to be able to talk about it.[/quote]

SO when you said that red is not a concept you misspoke.

HC, you were being unclear when you first talked of the "concept of red", because, in the first instance, "red" is a perceived colur, not a concept - animals that have very little brain-power see red without troublng themselves with concepts at all.

DavidMcC wrote:HC, you were being unclear when you first talked of the "concept of red", because, in the first instance, "red" is a perceived colur, not a concept - animals that have very little brain-power see red without troublng themselves with concepts at all.

Bullshit! Anything that you have experience of and or can abstract mentally is a concept.

Oldskeptic wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:HC, you were being unclear when you first talked of the "concept of red", because, in the first instance, "red" is a perceived colur, not a concept - animals that have very little brain-power see red without troublng themselves with concepts at all.

Bullshit! Anything that you have experience of and or can abstract mentally is a concept.

I agree that we can (and do) make a concept out of red, but that does not make the concept essential to colour perception. It is a construction built on the perception. Therefore, it is fundamentally different from other mental concepts, which do not involve perception.
EDIT: It is better to call colours "percepts" than "concepts".

... This thread has veered way off-topic, because there is no aspect of morality involved any more, and all because someone threw in an irrelevance such as "red".

Mrs. Lak can see all sorts of imaginary colors. I see beige, she sees cream, Tuscan, buff, Desert Sand, ecru, khaki, taupe, camel, and probably a few others.

Beige. It's all beige.

DavidMcC wrote:

romansh wrote:Yes, yes I get it. The concepts of morality and ethics exist.

But then so does the concept of red. Whereas, red itself is a little more difficult to believe if we start thinking about physics and biochemistry associated with the experience of red.
...

You do not have to study or think about "red" to see it, therefore, "red" is not a concept (unless you are talking of linguistics rather than sensory biology).

EDIT: I apologise to the rest of the forum (except romansh) for this off-topic conversation about colour perception, but I was not the one to start it.

You don't have to believe in "red", because, whatever Oldskeptic may say, you only have to see red, not believe in it as a concept. Why he thinks the "physics and biochemistry associated with the experience of red" make it doubtful as a "concept" is beyond me. True, it is complicated, such that colour optical illusions are possible, but that does not mean there is no such thing as red as a component of many percepts, unless, of course you are a protanope, with a visual system that is insensitive to red wavelengths : http://www.colourblindawareness.org/colour-blindness/types-of-colour-blindness/

Protanopia

Protanopes are more likely to confuse:-
1. Black with many shades of red
2. Dark brown with dark green, dark orange and dark red
2. Some blues with some reds, purples and dark pinks
3. Mid-greens with some oranges

Ah, nice, a thread where I get to side with DavidMcC! This should be tons of fun.

Our perception of red is a function of the types and quantities of cones in our retinas. Very simple animals, with levels of neurological complexity which probably preclude attributing conceptual thought to them, are able to perceive and react to the color red specifically, and many of these simple organisms will even modify their reactions as a function of the specific shade of red that they're perceiving.

Unless one proposes a dualistic and/or Idealist model of the world, it stands to reason that perception precedes conception for us.

laklak wrote:Mrs. Lak can see all sorts of imaginary colors. I see beige, she sees cream, Tuscan, buff, Desert Sand, ecru, khaki, taupe, camel, and probably a few others.

Beige. It's all beige.

I empathize. We're buying a house, so conversations about color and decorating currently abound in the D-Money household. I was reading about color perception when I was younger, and there do seem to be very rare females which perceive an additional axis of color (the commonly perceived color axes being blue-yellow, red-green, and white-black), but as a male engaged in home decorating with a female, I am tempted to conclude that ALL females perceive this additional color axis.

Pragmatically London double decker buses can be considered as red, because we each have our own individual experience which may or may not be similar that we define as red. No one I think is arguing against this.

The physics and biochemistry is not on the side of these buses actually being red.

Similarly we (perhaps with exception of complete sociopaths) have a sense of or experience pride, guilt and similar feelings regarding any actions we might have taken or will be taking. These actions are no more moral or immoral than buses are actually red.

romansh wrote:The physics and biochemistry is not on the side of these buses actually being red.

I would like you to elaborate on this concept. Because if the surface of a red bus did not have a physical structure which, either due to reflection or refraction, cause a preponderance of light with a wavelength between 620nm and 750nm to be redirected toward our eyes, it would not appear to us to be red. Similarly, plants appear green to us because they really are green. The pigmentation of the plant reflects primarily light between 520nm and 560nm because that is the wavelength of light which is least useful to the plant. The color of the plant conveys useful information about the biochemical processes of the plant. And if the plant is bearing red fruit, that coloration is usually conveying useful information, as well, about the ripeness of that fruit. Red fruit evolved prior to the advent of humans, and so it is safe to say that the coevolution between plants and animals such that plants are able to communicate the ripeness of their fruit to the animals they are attempting to bribe with that fruit occurred independently of the concept of red.

Colors are in the world, as wavelengths of light, independently of a conceiving mind. Minds far less complicated than ours- animals which really cannot be said to have minds at all- rely upon the perception of colors for their survival. Given that these animals lack the neural architecture to invent colors, it seems reasonable to conclude that there are real stimuli out in the world which correspond to colors.

Red being an angry color is in your head. Red, itself, is in the world, as wavelengths/frequencies of light.

If God didn't want red to be angry he wouldn't have said "nature, red in tooth and claw". Checkmate, atheists.

On a slightly different note, why do women paint their nails (or maybe "talons"?) the color of blood? Are they trying to tell us something? What's it mean?

laklak wrote:If God didn't want red to be angry he wouldn't have said "nature, red in tooth and claw". Checkmate, atheists.

On a slightly different note, why do women paint their nails (or maybe "talons"?) the color of blood? Are they trying to tell us something? What's it mean?

There are primates whose arses turn red when they're ready for a little bangy-bangy. Maybe the tendency of our females to paint their hands and mouths with these colors is intended to piggy-back on our evolutionary past, grab our attention, and advertise their flexibility in terms of where they'd like it?

laklak wrote:Mrs. Lak can see all sorts of imaginary colors. I see beige, she sees cream, Tuscan, buff, Desert Sand, ecru, khaki, taupe, camel, and probably a few others.

Beige. It's all beige.

It sounds like Mrs Lak is a tetrachromat and you are a plain old trichromat, like most of us.
Am I right, wrong, or don't you know?

LATE EDIT: OR, does the missus just like to vary the words she uses for the same perceived colour?

Scholastic
I don't have a problem with your physics perhaps incomplete... but you are describing the concept of what colour is ... the bus is not red, our experience of it is.

Exactly where are the yellow photons in this image?

Also just before you go to sleep in a dark room do you see faint colours?

romansh wrote:Scholastic
I don't have a problem with your physics perhaps incomplete... but you are describing the concept of what colour is ... the bus is not red, our experience of it is.

Exactly where are the yellow photons in this image?
...

Romansh, why would there have to be any "yellow" photons, when your LW (red) and MW (green) cone cells can be equally stimulated with a spectrum which has only, say red and green photons, or a whole range of mixtures that happen to give the same cone cell response as monochromatic yellow?

EDIT: BTW, a trichromat sees yellow when his/her LW and MW cones are equally stimulated. It is the brightest colour in the rainbow, because those two cone cell response curves have a strong overlap, being quite close in wavelength. (I posted more detail on this subject a while back.)