Colours are five-dimensional conceptual structures of chemical and energy relations.
They exist potentially as values - any reference to the ‘actuality’ of a colour is a reduction of information using particular value structures: light wave frequencies, chemical ‘signatures’, computer ‘code’, etc.
So in the above metaphor, I would say that the colour yellow exists potentially in the program, not actually in the computer.
I would say we see color for the evolutionary reason that reflectivity of that small band of the electromagnetic radiation is really useful for navigating the environment. — Marchesk
how would you say the colors we 'see' are ontologically "related to the reflectivity of electromagnetic radiation in the visible range"? — Sir Philo Sophia
What in the world is not clear about better vision being better than worse vision? — Zelebg
if better vision has more (e.g., energy) cost than its survival benefits then Darwin would say that better performing vision is even worse than worse vision.
Is the moon made of cheese? — Marchesk
Is the moon made of cheese? — Marchesk
So do colors exist? — Marchesk
1. How do emergent properties result in self-awareness ( of colors)?
2. What kind of survival value is essential in choosing colors for cars; guitars, houses, clothing hair color, makeup, et al.?
3. Do human's exclusively rely on colors in the successful search for their food ?
4. Was prehistoric man concerned about the color of their prey before they chose to kill it?
5. What do you think Darwin would say about the metaphysical features of red evoking or conveying excitement from the color wheel? — 3017amen
It is well known that primates effectively use color to ID a wide variety of foods (incl. fruits and other edibles). Color is used by many hyper poisonous creatures to warn others (who can see color) don't mess w/ me, or you die. — Sir Philo Sophia
I actually do not see there are two distinct interpretations on the question of the existence of colors. — Zelebg
Sounds true enough. Why five dimensions? — Zelebg
I can’t disagree, and you definitely said something, but it feels kind of empty. Can you elaborate on ‘reduction of information’ thing with some examples if possible? — Zelebg
Is that different than how colors exist in the brain / mind? — Zelebg
Colour exists potentially in the brain as conceptual or five-dimensional relations, developed through prediction error to be relatively accurate in relation to our experiences so far. The information we refer to as ‘colour’ is irreducible in this sense.
Sounds good, but I don't know what to do with it. — Zelebg
It's too general, can you narrow down "development" thing - developed via what elements, what value / property is that preduction error relative to? — Zelebg
What is it you were expecting to be able do with it?
I was hoping you to say something about why those differences / changes / relations, whatever they physically are, why they feel like they feel, where do “warm / cold”, “sweet / sour”, “bright / dark” come from, are they arbitrary, why “bright / dark“ instead of “abc / xyz”, something along those lines. — Zelebg
When you say ‘physically’, do you mean in relation to what is observable/measurable or in relation to physics/chemistry/biology?
Physical is what is observable / measurable in principle, in a sense that if ghost or souls can be observed / measured they too would automatically then fall into physical category. Existing and being physical / material is one and same thing, i.e. there is no such thing as immaterial existence by definition. I consider chemistry / biology to be physical / material assuming we can at least in principle or even just indirectly measure or observe everything about it. — Zelebg
Can you say is color a property of something, is it a substance of some kind, maybe entity or object, or whatever the most general category colors belong to? — Zelebg
This is where you and I differ, because I consider potential and possible existence as two types of ‘immaterial’ existence, and what is observable/measurable as a reduction of these aspects of reality. The uncertainty or relativity with which we must consider this ‘immaterial’ existence, and its irreducibility to the apparent certainty or ‘objectivity’ of the physical/material does not preclude its existence. I’m not saying that ghosts or souls are real as such, but that the subjective experiences expressed as ‘ghost’ or ‘soul’ have a potential or at least possible existence that matters to a comprehensive understanding of reality.
I don’t see any difference between possible and potential, but in any case unknown event or entity from the future holds no explanation about objects and their properties in the past and present time. — Zelebg
Even possible future events have to have their potential embedded in the physical state of matter of the past. You can not define anything, not even a potential, with absolutely nothing. Future possibility has to lie in something, and there is no other something but physical and material something, because everything else is nothing by definition. — Zelebg
Colors exist as objects of cognition. Cognition is a function of conscious agents. — Noah Te Stroete
I don’t disagree with what you’re saying. Different wavelengths of electromagnetism exist without consciousness. But is this really what we think of as color? — Noah Te Stroete
That said, I don’t think this discussion has any practical weight in my life, so I’m not that interested in it. I could be persuaded, but really in the end, who cares? — Noah Te Stroete
The second asks about the domain of a predicate, are there things that are coloured? ∃(x)f(x)?
This difference in structure shows why it is so much easier to see the second as asking 'bout word use. — Banno
whenever they talk about red they are referring to their red. — sime
Therefore consider the irrealist alternative; namely that ontological disagreements are partly the result of our collectively inconsistent use of language. — sime
The problem with ordinary language in this case is that it hides an assumption of naive realism when it comes to color. And a lot of other things, for that matter. — Marchesk
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.