Didn't know Dr Jay Neitz talked about tetrachromic vision. — TiredThinker
For whatever reason the golden ratio is most desirable. — TiredThinker
These things are more complex than colors, but we can make conclusions about them outside of particular contexts. Am I right? — TiredThinker
t have you read David Gamez?, — darthbarracuda
When the lights are out, all you experience is black with no shapes. Black is a color, no?Colour reveals the surface and so helps you see the shape. — apokrisis
Exactly. While you and I aren't the same experiencers of objects and light, the objects and light are the same and is the stability in our experiences. It is what we are talking about when talking about objects, not our experiences of them.So, it's not so much that "my red is the same as yours", more that there's enough interactional stability that we can find coherent ways to talk about it. — jorndoe
The experience isn't what is socially constructed. Babies experience colors before learning how to use colored scribbles to refer to those experiences. How does a child learn to use words without first being able to distinguish black ink marks from the white paper?It is really important that colour experience is socially constructed through language use. We all learn to talk about red as "that experience of redness we all share". — apokrisis
Not really. Those three components aren't just in an on/off state. They are stimulated in varying degrees, and those varying degrees of each are calculated to provide distinct information about each object, or parts of the object.Colour by contrast is much more abstract because the discrimination is based on just three opponent channel processes. — apokrisis
Our minds are part of the world and color is part of our minds, therefore color is in the world. Could we really talk about colors if colors were not part of the world? We talk about colors as opposed to wavelengths because that is what we experience, and in talking about colors, we are actually talking about wavelengths.So the argument is that we see colour not because that is what is there in the world. — apokrisis
It seems to me that more distinctions we can make, the more information we have, and the more information we have, the better decisions we can make. — Harry Hindu
The experience isn't what is socially constructed. Babies experience colors before learning how to use colored scribbles to refer to those experiences. — Harry Hindu
Those three components aren't just in an on/off state. They are stimulated in varying degrees — Harry Hindu
Our minds are part of the world and color is part of our minds, therefore color is in the world. — Harry Hindu
A dragonfly may have 30 with their eyes to head ratio being much larger than other animals, but the ratio of brain-size with humans is much larger. So what evolution did for the eyes of a dragonfly may have done the same for the brain of a human. The human brain could probably perform the calculations to acquire the information that a dragonfly eye acquires without doing as many calculations because it's eyes do most of the work of distinguishing colors while it's the brain of a human that does the distinguishing.But it is easy to evolve extra photo pigments yet even as many as three Is unusual in large brain mammals. However dragonflies can have 30.
So evolution seems to say more is not necessarily better in this case. Maybe it is like science. The more you can predict from the least number of measurements seems like a good indication you have a great theory. — apokrisis
Sounds to me that talking about the experience of experiencing is simply talking about memories. What they are doing is recall.This is a meta distinction. When folk talk about qualia, they are now talking about the experience of experiencing. Rather than just doing, it is now a rational exercise in contrast and compare. — apokrisis
Talking about wavelengths having degrees of redness is nonsensical. There aren't only three wavelenghts of visible light. There is a range of wavelengths and the human eye is sensitive to them all to some degree or another. So it makes no sense to assert that there are only three colors that a human eye can see. It's just that our eyes are more or less sensitive to certain wavelengths.Sure. A “red” ganglion cell collating the information will have some baseline neutral rate of firing and fire harder depending on the degree of redness and slow it’s firing right down to the degree instead of greenness present. So “off” isn’t just a signal of no red. It is a signal of green. Hence afterimages. — apokrisis
I think we agree mostly and are simply disagreeing about how and what types of information are being processed, and for what purpose.That is trite. My whole argument is about how to make physicalism work and avoid having to take the usual Cartesian route. And you are failing to respond to the particular way I resolve the issue - a properly biological form of “information processing”. — apokrisis
So it makes no sense to assert that there are only three colors that a human eye can see. It's just that our eyes are more or less sensitive to certain wavelengths. — Harry Hindu
Coincidentally I've just been in two stores looking for liquitex cadmium red medium and neither store had it. I'm taking this as a sign of the end of the world. — frank
Phew! That was a rollercoaster! — Kenosha Kid
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.