Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is your red my red?

muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 7:48:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 7:44:21 AM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
http://m.youtube.com...

I've asked myself this question since I've known about myself. So, can we explain red? What do you think?

Its impossible. I find this problem to be a form of soft solisism. In that the poblem is similar, and the answer is the same. You can appeal to a god, accept that everything could be fake, or just not give a crap. I choose the last one.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 8:48:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's basically a meaningless academic question.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 2:51:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
All of our eyes receive the same wavelengths designated "red" but no two people have comparable experiences of "red."

It's the difference between knowing everything there is to know bout bats and knowing what it is like to be a bat.
natoast
Posts: 204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 3:09:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well we all associate red with excitement, but that might be an evolutionary thing, as a reaction to fire. And if that's the case, if we have the same emotional reaction to the color and our brains interpret the color the same way, why would it look different to different people? And anyways, I agree that color is subjective, so it doesn't matter.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 4:21:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Yes.

The question originates out of the supposed one-way interaction between our brain and the environment. The environment produces stimuli which our brain processes into perception.

However, the one-way nature of this process is being turned around by science.

http://gizmodo.com...

If I show you red, and your brain processes it, and I record how the brain processes it, and feed it into a machine, and produce something that I perceive as red, then we can reasonably assume that our perceptions are the same in this regard.

Furthermore, we are built of the same cloth. At some point, we have the same ancestor. There is nothing, in all of biology or neuroscience that suggests that we would have drastically different perceptions of the world without some sort of evolutionary change regarding our brains.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 5:11:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
No, my red is better than yours.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 7:10:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 4:21:41 PM, drafterman wrote:
Yes.

The question originates out of the supposed one-way interaction between our brain and the environment. The environment produces stimuli which our brain processes into perception.

However, the one-way nature of this process is being turned around by science.

http://gizmodo.com...

If I show you red, and your brain processes it, and I record how the brain processes it, and feed it into a machine, and produce something that I perceive as red, then we can reasonably assume that our perceptions are the same in this regard.

So you're going to show them something that is red, then a machine is going to see what he sees as red, and then you're going to see what the machine sees as red, and that confirms you're seeing the same thing? Whut? No it doesn't: it just adds an extra chance for misunderstanding.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 8:10:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 7:10:21 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/21/2013 4:21:41 PM, drafterman wrote:
Yes.

The question originates out of the supposed one-way interaction between our brain and the environment. The environment produces stimuli which our brain processes into perception.

However, the one-way nature of this process is being turned around by science.

http://gizmodo.com...

If I show you red, and your brain processes it, and I record how the brain processes it, and feed it into a machine, and produce something that I perceive as red, then we can reasonably assume that our perceptions are the same in this regard.

So you're going to show them something that is red, then a machine is going to see what he sees as red, and then you're going to see what the machine sees as red, and that confirms you're seeing the same thing? Whut? No it doesn't: it just adds an extra chance for misunderstanding.

How so? The machine is producing a picture based on the brain activity of the individual. So the question is, how does the machine know what color the person is seeing unless color is something that is hardwired into his brain? And how would the machine know to produce the exact same color, unless there was an actual link between the perception and the color itself?

Questions like these are usually followed up with something like, "How do I know what I see as red is what you see as blue?" And the answer is, because a machine like this wouldn't be able to work because it would have no way of knowing what color to produce based on the brain activity of your perception. Or, if my perception was different than yours, it would produce different colors depending on who it was attached to.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 8:34:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Really, you could say that an apple isn't red but instead it has the properties that invoke the colour red to us. When we call something red what we mean is that it invokes red in us. It doesn't matter what it does actually invoke, just that it can invoke that thing.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 9:46:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 4:21:41 PM, drafterman wrote:
Yes.

The question originates out of the supposed one-way interaction between our brain and the environment. The environment produces stimuli which our brain processes into perception.

However, the one-way nature of this process is being turned around by science.

http://gizmodo.com...

If I show you red, and your brain processes it, and I record how the brain processes it, and feed it into a machine, and produce something that I perceive as red, then we can reasonably assume that our perceptions are the same in this regard.

Furthermore, we are built of the same cloth. At some point, we have the same ancestor. There is nothing, in all of biology or neuroscience that suggests that we would have drastically different perceptions of the world without some sort of evolutionary change regarding our brains.

Sorry, but we're much less advanced than you seem to think.

First, how are we supposed to believe we all "experience" the same red with each INDIVIDUAL experiences different types of red depending on what colors are around it (http://en.wikipedia.org...)?

Second, your link is basically the following experiment:

1. Subject x to hundreds of youtube clips.
2. Do fMRIs of the brain for every clip.
3. Record what the brain (c) like when clip y is on the screen.
4. After prolonged exposure and recording, ask x to imagine z.
5. fMRI reads brain. If brain is c, then the computer translates that into relevant pixels in y.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2013 6:48:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 9:46:16 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/21/2013 4:21:41 PM, drafterman wrote:
Yes.

The question originates out of the supposed one-way interaction between our brain and the environment. The environment produces stimuli which our brain processes into perception.

However, the one-way nature of this process is being turned around by science.

http://gizmodo.com...

If I show you red, and your brain processes it, and I record how the brain processes it, and feed it into a machine, and produce something that I perceive as red, then we can reasonably assume that our perceptions are the same in this regard.

Furthermore, we are built of the same cloth. At some point, we have the same ancestor. There is nothing, in all of biology or neuroscience that suggests that we would have drastically different perceptions of the world without some sort of evolutionary change regarding our brains.

Sorry, but we're much less advanced than you seem to think.

Well, yeah, which is why indicated that this is an ongoing process.


First, how are we supposed to believe we all "experience" the same red with each INDIVIDUAL experiences different types of red depending on what colors are around it (http://en.wikipedia.org...)?

That doesn't indicate a difference among individuals, as far as I can tell.


Second, your link is basically the following experiment:

1. Subject x to hundreds of youtube clips.
2. Do fMRIs of the brain for every clip.
3. Record what the brain (c) like when clip y is on the screen.
4. After prolonged exposure and recording, ask x to imagine z.
5. fMRI reads brain. If brain is c, then the computer translates that into relevant pixels in y.

Exactly, and unless there was some 1:1 correlation between the person's imagining of red and the actual objective color of red, the computer wouldn't be able to produce an objective representation of that red.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2013 1:09:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 8:10:23 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 2/21/2013 7:10:21 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 2/21/2013 4:21:41 PM, drafterman wrote:
Yes.

The question originates out of the supposed one-way interaction between our brain and the environment. The environment produces stimuli which our brain processes into perception.

However, the one-way nature of this process is being turned around by science.

http://gizmodo.com...

If I show you red, and your brain processes it, and I record how the brain processes it, and feed it into a machine, and produce something that I perceive as red, then we can reasonably assume that our perceptions are the same in this regard.

So you're going to show them something that is red, then a machine is going to see what he sees as red, and then you're going to see what the machine sees as red, and that confirms you're seeing the same thing? Whut? No it doesn't: it just adds an extra chance for misunderstanding.

How so? The machine is producing a picture based on the brain activity of the individual. So the question is, how does the machine know what color the person is seeing unless color is something that is hardwired into his brain? And how would the machine know to produce the exact same color, unless there was an actual link between the perception and the color itself?

Questions like these are usually followed up with something like, "How do I know what I see as red is what you see as blue?" And the answer is, because a machine like this wouldn't be able to work because it would have no way of knowing what color to produce based on the brain activity of your perception. Or, if my perception was different than yours, it would produce different colors depending on who it was attached to.

The original system is:

Person A >>>> Red Object <<<< Person B

I think we agree. They both see an object, they both say it is red. However, the possibility is:

Person A >>>> Mind that make blue things red >>>> Red Object <<<< Person B's mind<<<< Person B.

Or, that the person's seeing faculty makes things that seem red, blue, and things that seem blue, red. However, as colours are only known by example and not definition, both people will say they see the same colour. The machine does this:

Person A >>>> Mind >>>> Eyes >>>> Object.
Machine Imager >>>> Person A's mind >>>> image of object >>>> Person B's mind >>>> Person B.

Now, it seems like we solve the problem now. However, let's point out what we've really done:

Person A >>> Mind >>> Machine's image >>> Person B's Mind >>> Person B

Though the machine purportedly solves the problem, as the image now is a certain colour in reality, what the colour of the object is in reality is a moot point: the problem is that different people observing it would cause problems.

Now, let's posit something else: there is no fault in our material sight, yet the fault is with an immaterial mind interpreting the data. There's no way of using a machine to record this. The problem still would remain.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Cinco
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2013 7:33:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 7:44:21 AM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
http://m.youtube.com...

I've asked myself this question since I've known about myself. So, can we explain red? What do you think?

I concluded - as a child - that it doesn't matter. If another saw my green where I saw my red, he would still choose a crayon that appeared to be what I call "red", with which to color a strawberry - so who cares? Although, I had a pretty good giggle at the idea that I might appear green, to others.
If your time, to you,
Is worth savin',
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone.
For the times they are a-changin'. - Bob Dylan
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2013 8:25:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/22/2013 6:48:43 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 2/21/2013 9:46:16 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/21/2013 4:21:41 PM, drafterman wrote:
Yes.

The question originates out of the supposed one-way interaction between our brain and the environment. The environment produces stimuli which our brain processes into perception.

However, the one-way nature of this process is being turned around by science.

http://gizmodo.com...

If I show you red, and your brain processes it, and I record how the brain processes it, and feed it into a machine, and produce something that I perceive as red, then we can reasonably assume that our perceptions are the same in this regard.

Furthermore, we are built of the same cloth. At some point, we have the same ancestor. There is nothing, in all of biology or neuroscience that suggests that we would have drastically different perceptions of the world without some sort of evolutionary change regarding our brains.

Sorry, but we're much less advanced than you seem to think.

Well, yeah, which is why indicated that this is an ongoing process.


First, how are we supposed to believe we all "experience" the same red with each INDIVIDUAL experiences different types of red depending on what colors are around it (http://en.wikipedia.org...)?

That doesn't indicate a difference among individuals, as far as I can tell.


Second, your link is basically the following experiment:

1. Subject x to hundreds of youtube clips.
2. Do fMRIs of the brain for every clip.
3. Record what the brain (c) like when clip y is on the screen.
4. After prolonged exposure and recording, ask x to imagine z.
5. fMRI reads brain. If brain is c, then the computer translates that into relevant pixels in y.

Exactly, and unless there was some 1:1 correlation between the person's imagining of red and the actual objective color of red, the computer wouldn't be able to produce an objective representation of that red.

Actually, that's not how the computer program works. As the writer later explains:

"Think about those 18 million seconds of random videos as a painter's color palette. A painter sees a red rose in real life and tries to reproduce the color using the different kinds of reds available in his palette, combining them to match what he's seeing. The software does the same: it analyzes how the brain reacts to certain stimuli, compares it to what is available in the 18 million palette, and picts what more closely matches the brain reaction. Then it combines the clips that are not what the subject is seeing to try to recreate what the subject is seeing."

If a painter wants to paint a rose, but the only tint of red he has on his pallette is light red, then no matter how much of a dark red the rose actually is the painting will reflect light red. The machine is reproducing brain activity using a pre-defined "pallete." It's not showing you red as experienced by someone.

Consider what would happen if they tried this experiment with someone who was colorblind for red. When the colorblind kid sees a red tie, the fMRI will record the brain state as "red tie" and when imagined reproduce "red tie" on screen even though at no point does colorblind kid EXPERIENCE the color red.
KroneckerDelta
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2013 9:34:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
First, if I take your question literally, then the answer is definitely yes. Assuming neither of us isn't color blind (which is physiological, NOT perceptional), then if we both are shown a red color, we will agree it's red, thus we agree that it's the "same" red.

Your actual question is unanswerable (largely because of the above). Which is do we actually see the "same" red. First, we clearly will agree that the same wavelength is "red", what we may not agree on is the actual perceived color. In fact, most people take this to mean something like: maybe my red is your green and your green is my red, but it goes even deeper than that. Perhaps your perception of red is a color that I could NOT even comprehend!!!

While this seems like a philosophical question, it's not, it's a physical question, which is that is it possible that different people perceive the world differently. While there is no way to actually test whether or not this is true, the fact that we are the same species, the fact that our eyes are physically (essentially) identical and the fact that our brains are very similar in function suggests that we all perceive things in a similar manner.

So basically, without any convincing arguments for why it would be different (other than that it could be), there is no reason to believe it is different.

The more interesting philosophical question here is what is perception and how does it affect what we think to be real or not. It's a much more broad question and starts to unravel what we all take to be reality and the fact that our entire reality is all in our minds and doesn't actually exist. For instance, our minds tell us that a tree is a solid object and thus we shouldn't run into it (serves us pretty well, doesn't it?)--yet science tells us that actually a tree (and all "solid" objects) are actually mostly empty space! Our perception doesn't see this reality, so one has to ask whether our perception of the real world is really correct, or just a very good approximation of reality?
KroneckerDelta
Cinco
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 9:32:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2013 6:02:44 AM, drafterman wrote:
Yeah, the color blindness thing is a good point.

I don't think "color blindness" is relevant as it is more of an inability to properly distinguish between one color and another. Like seeing the "green" of grass and the "red"of a strawberry as too similar to identify which is which, regarding color. For all we know, a color blind person may perceive them as both being similar shades of blue.
If your time, to you,
Is worth savin',
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone.
For the times they are a-changin'. - Bob Dylan
KroneckerDelta
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 2:20:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2013 9:32:46 AM, Cinco wrote:
At 2/23/2013 6:02:44 AM, drafterman wrote:
Yeah, the color blindness thing is a good point.

I don't think "color blindness" is relevant as it is more of an inability to properly distinguish between one color and another. Like seeing the "green" of grass and the "red"of a strawberry as too similar to identify which is which, regarding color. For all we know, a color blind person may perceive them as both being similar shades of blue.

Color blindness isn't perceptional, it's physical. People that are color blind lack some of the machinery to properly distinguish different colors. The simplest example is someone who is completely color blind (i.e. cannot see any colors): they completely lack cones in their retina which is necessary for detecting differing wavelengths of light (i.e. what we call color).

http://en.wikipedia.org...

How do you add pictures to these posts?? Or will just typing the URL work (because I think it doesn't): http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net...
KroneckerDelta
Cinco
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 5:02:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2013 2:20:46 PM, KroneckerDelta wrote:

Color blindness isn't perceptional, it's physical. People that are color blind lack some of the machinery to properly distinguish different colors. The simplest example is someone who is completely color blind (i.e. cannot see any colors): they completely lack cones in their retina which is necessary for detecting differing wavelengths of light (i.e. what we call color).

http://en.wikipedia.org...


How do you add pictures to these posts?? Or will just typing the URL work (because I think it doesn't): http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net...

Color is perceived through the physical apparatus whether one is color blind or not, no? But wouldn't it be cool if color blind people can only see purple? Of course, we'd have no way of knowing, right? Well...I don't know...I was going to say that it would be pretty boring but that's only because I've experienced variations of color. It wouldn't be boring if I'd never seen the difference, it would simply be irrelevant. Plus, another thought - how do we know which is "defective". Just because the majority see more colors doesn't mean that the majority is the "better". Another rabbit hole - no way of knowing.
If your time, to you,
Is worth savin',
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone.
For the times they are a-changin'. - Bob Dylan
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 7:17:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2013 9:32:46 AM, Cinco wrote:
At 2/23/2013 6:02:44 AM, drafterman wrote:
Yeah, the color blindness thing is a good point.

I don't think "color blindness" is relevant as it is more of an inability to properly distinguish between one color and another. Like seeing the "green" of grass and the "red"of a strawberry as too similar to identify which is which, regarding color. For all we know, a color blind person may perceive them as both being similar shades of blue.

It's relevant to a methodological issue with extrapolating "experience of color" from "brainscan of experience of color."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 9:34:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There is, I believe, a slight difference between the ways males and females perceive red.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
philosopherforustice
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2013 2:04:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2013 9:34:06 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
There is, I believe, a slight difference between the ways males and females perceive red.
How so?
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2013 8:19:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Sophist: Red is a Wavelength.

The Fool: The Wave Length. Wavelength are pure formal essence.
There is no red wavelength. For you can dream red. or hallucinated Red, despite there being any relation to wavelength whatsoever.

You can know everything about neuroscience and wavelength and yet have no idea of what red is if you are Absolutely blind or color blind.

While a baby can know what red is and know nothing about wavelength nor how to even speak.

In fact you can have no eyeballs, at all and some drug may trigger you to see red.
Via some other route.

@ best The wavelength which is a purely abstract concept as is energy or particle, or magnetism or electromagnetism.

Insofar as it is related to Red it is a possible cause in a particular Chain of many other possible chains of events leading to the sensation of Red.

initial State-----continuous chains of events----->popular event------crossing through metaphysical domains====experience

Wavelengths------who knows how long----->hits retina---Transduction====Red.

KEY WORD: """""Transduction.""" Change in energy TYPE.

Different wavelength--------->-different contrasting colors------->===Red

Different wavelength---------->Different person----------->====Red

No wavelength---------->Punch in the eye--------------->====Red

Who Knows------------->internal events --->Hallucination======Red

Eyes close with no wavelength-------Dreaming------------>=======Red

blind from birth---------->Drugs------>>>----------->=====Red.

NO EYES and Blind from birth----------->Drugs---->---------->========Red

And so forth and so on..

That is, it is by the experience of red that we have identified a CORRELATION, (not necessarily causation) of Wavelength. It is not the other way around. We did not discover Red by the abstract conception of Wavelength, In fact we have never experienced a wavelength at all. But rather created a mathematical modal would we call wavelength based from the sensations/reason that we actually experience.

And the Cause of Red Does not equal THE RED. No more then My Fingers, and key board equal the text you are reading or the Thought you are having.

Nor can their be Fake Red. For Red is Red, is Red.

Or at least that is the word from the Hill. Take it for what its worth.

The Fool @ the hill.

http://gizmodo.com...

Not even close, to their yet.

"Popular science can be the source of many misconceptions about scientific theories when done badly - often a theory can be misrepresented by a pop science writer wanting to over-emphasize the sensational aspects of it - but it can cement ideas and perceptions in the public mind when done well. And allot of false Ideas."

http://rationalwiki.org...
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2013 9:22:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 2:51:44 PM, Wnope wrote:
All of our eyes receive the same wavelengths designated "red" but no two people have comparable experiences of "red."

It's the difference between knowing everything there is to know bout bats and knowing what it is like to be a bat.

The Fool: The wavelength is a mathematical Model, There is nothing Red about it.
We have mislabeled it Red, but someone who only knows the wavelength relation, doesn't know anything about red. Saying the word would not give them any more information, then the raw data numbers.

nor do we experience Wave lengthiness, that is the purely rationalist aspect
we don't observe wavelength.
what we observe is Red, the actual empirical aspect is the red color.

we don't observed 280 or 182 or whatever wavelength.

We define the Units of measurement ------>IN TERMS <----of wavelength.
It doesn't actually become the measurement units. Its an equivocation. It becomes popular to confuse the measure with what is actually being experienced.

Care to have a debate on it. ?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
KroneckerDelta
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2013 3:10:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
We do experience wavelengths, in fact we do it all the time, it's called seeing! Now there is no doubt that when we experience the color red, we do not experience it solely because a wavelength of 620 nm hits the retina. This stimulates the vision parts of the brain and then our brain interprets the data (the wavelengths). So it makes sense that we can bypass the eyes altogether and imagine or hallucinate the color red.

There are two things here: 1) since our brains are basically the same (at least within species), then it's reasonable to assume that everyone experiences the same red. Again, you could never prove this, but without reason to believe it's different it makes no sense to make that leap. The second thing is that it's still the wavelength that will initiate your experience of red. You will not know red until you see it with your own eyes (i.e. until a 620-700 nm wavelength hits your retina). So it is the physical (the wavelength) that is most important. Just because your brain can simulate reactions without physical input doesn't change the fact that it cannot simulate something it has never experienced.

I seriously doubt that a blind person (totally blind from birth) has any kind of experience of the color red (or any colors for that matter). This is because they have never physically experienced red and thus there is no initial input for the brain to produce hallucinations of anything visual.
KroneckerDelta
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2013 3:52:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/24/2013 9:22:47 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 2/21/2013 2:51:44 PM, Wnope wrote:
All of our eyes receive the same wavelengths designated "red" but no two people have comparable experiences of "red."

It's the difference between knowing everything there is to know bout bats and knowing what it is like to be a bat.

The Fool: The wavelength is a mathematical Model, There is nothing Red about it.
We have mislabeled it Red, but someone who only knows the wavelength relation, doesn't know anything about red. Saying the word would not give them any more information, then the raw data numbers.

nor do we experience Wave lengthiness, that is the purely rationalist aspect
we don't observe wavelength.
what we observe is Red, the actual empirical aspect is the red color.

we don't observed 280 or 182 or whatever wavelength.

We define the Units of measurement ------>IN TERMS <----of wavelength.
It doesn't actually become the measurement units. Its an equivocation. It becomes popular to confuse the measure with what is actually being experienced.

Care to have a debate on it. ?

By "designate" I referred to the commonsense intuition of equating lightwaves with some identifiable hue on the electromagnetic spectrum. I wasn't endorsing it as an ontological truth.

We can speak of spectrum red, a particular span of wavelengths. However, spectrum red is not equivalent to experience red (red as experienced by an individual).

A person can identify "red" with "spectrum red" even though his entire life what he calls "experience red" is what you would call "experience blue."

"Spectrum red" exists in the same manner that infrared exists. Humans cannot experience infrared (without aid), but we can still point to infrared defined by a spectrum. Infrared exists in the same manner FM microwaves do.

The difference between spectrum red and FM microwaves is that humans associate "spectrum red" with "experience red."
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2013 6:41:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/24/2013 3:52:53 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/24/2013 9:22:47 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 2/21/2013 2:51:44 PM, Wnope wrote:
All of our eyes receive the same wavelengths designated "red" but no two people have comparable experiences of "red."

It's the difference between knowing everything there is to know bout bats and knowing what it is like to be a bat.

The Fool: The wavelength is a mathematical Model, There is nothing Red about it.
We have mislabeled it Red, but someone who only knows the wavelength relation, doesn't know anything about red. Saying the word would not give them any more information, then the raw data numbers.

nor do we experience Wave lengthiness, that is the purely rationalist aspect
we don't observe wavelength.
what we observe is Red, the actual empirical aspect is the red color.

we don't observed 280 or 182 or whatever wavelength.

We define the Units of measurement ------>IN TERMS <----of wavelength.
It doesn't actually become the measurement units. Its an equivocation. It becomes popular to confuse the measure with what is actually being experienced.

Care to have a debate on it. ?

By "designate" I referred to the commonsense intuition of equating lightwaves with some identifiable hue on the electromagnetic spectrum. I wasn't endorsing it as an ontological truth.

We can speak of spectrum red, a particular span of wavelengths. However, spectrum red is not equivalent to experience red (red as experienced by an individual).

A person can identify "red" with "spectrum red" even though his entire life what he calls "experience red" is what you would call "experience blue."

"Spectrum red" exists in the same manner that infrared exists. Humans cannot experience infrared (without aid), but we can still point to infrared defined by a spectrum. Infrared exists in the same manner FM microwaves do.

The difference between spectrum red and FM microwaves is that humans associate "spectrum red" with "experience red."

By "designate" I referred to the commonsense intuition of equating light waves with some identifiable hue on the electromagnetic spectrum.

I know I was too quick, but commonsense could be harmful, it is heuristical and bed ridden with false affirmations, it manifest itself in over generalizations. This results in stagnation by causing attachment to long debunked notions.

Wnope: We can speak of spectrum red, a particular span of wavelengths. However, spectrum red is not equivalent to experience red (red as experienced by an individual).

I know I was too quick, but commonsense could be harmful, it is heuristical and bed ridden with false affirmations, it manifest itself in over generalizations. This results in stagnation by causing attachments to long debunked notions.

Wnope: We can speak of spectrum red, a particular span of wavelengths. However, spectrum red is not equivalent to experience red (red as experienced by an individual).

The Fool: we can speak of cows jumping over the moon. But we need to be responsible how we define things. ("we can speak" is just asking for it.) We speak of a red spectrum because we actually thought the wavelength was the Red. But those were quite naive leaps we have made, and they could be costly not only in understanding things properly but people eat that up like gumbo, because it"s so simple.

Wnope: But we can still point to infrared defined by a spectrum. Infrared exists in the same manner FM microwaves do.

The Fool: I know, but what it means to aid us is to transduce it into the way we perceive it. The point is that there is a difference between purely formal matter, and conscious sensation. For they think the formal essence is that part they experience when it is in fact the opposite, the formal matter is a purely rational construct. What the Observations consist in is actual the conscious sensations. Not the other way around.

People are much more connected with each other then we think. Just the fact that I am here thinking thoughts which are never spoken out load, but rather transcribed, outwards into my hands to text on a screen and through computer through the net, onto your screen in which gets transduced back into the inner dimension.

We understand the difference between emotional words, well, too well, and the physicalists doctrine start making us more confused about things we know better and clearer, before. Where I doubt People were more confused about what color the other person was seeing before. The necessary condition to recognize these differences goes way beyond, smell, touch, vision, sound, Tactical sensations. It indicates a whole other un-taped dimension, of causal nexus that is not reducible to Sense data- alone.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2013 7:27:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
We do experience wavelengths, in fact we do it all the time, it's called seeing!

The Fool: well we know who is getting the Noble this year eh. lol

KroneckerDelta: Now there is no doubt that when we experience the color red, we do not experience it solely because a wavelength of 620 nm hits the retina.

The Fool: No doubt. That is why I gave, about at least 10 examples of other causal roots which have nothing to do with wavelength theory at all.
We can chuck wavelength theory in the garbage and create a whole new working model all together.

Um, you are aware that Wavelength is a mathematical modal we use to represent the world. It"s a measure we use to collect data. Right?
It"s a theoretical construct.

KroneckerDelta: This stimulates the vision parts of the brain and then our brain interprets the data (the wavelengths).

The Fool: Probably not, our brain doesn't experience anything, but rather information is transduced through the brain to our concious experience, in the mind.

The vision PARTs Eh!, is that how you are rolling?> LOLOL~!!! !

The Fool: Lol! No. We could imagine colors we have never seen before by mixing and matching them in our mind.

For we have had ARTIST long before the mathematical model of wavelengths. I am sure you have seen colours as a child haven;t you. Without any thing to do with the theoretical construct of wavelengths.

KroneckerDeltaSo it makes sense that we can bypass the eyes altogether and imagine or hallucinate the color red.

The Fool: Thus the drug example.

We can have the perception of red with out even having eyes. You are not familiar with the mind-body problem in science I take it. You are like fresh from the boat.

KroneckerDelta: Since our brains are basically the same (at least within species), then it's reasonable to assume that everyone experiences the same red.

The Fool: I am pretty sure that is the Reigning common sense assumption we all make. Without having anything to do with even knowing what the brain is.
So tell me more about this basically.. LOL!!!!!!!

KroneckerDelta: You will not know red until you see it with your own eyes (i.e. until a 620-700 nm wavelength hits your retina).

The Fool: Nonsense. LOL hahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahhahha.

KroneckerDelta: So it is the physical (the wavelength) that is most important.

The Fool: Oh yeah. The physical wavelenth eh. Hahahahhahahahahahahhahaa. Let me guess you see the energy too right? Lol
HAHAHAHAHAa.!! !

KroneckerDelta: Just because your brain can simulate reactions without physical input doesn't change the fact that it cannot simulate something it has never experienced. HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA A!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Fool: NO way!!!!!!!!l lOLOLOOLOL HAHHHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAAAAA!! ! I will continue to mocking you after I can breath.. . I will be back.. HAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAAHHHAAHAHH!!!>
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL