Say that a coloring agent is added to a clear pen in order to make it red. Different agents can be added to different pens in order to add different color to the plastic of the pen. Pigments and coloring agents exist out there, in the pen, independent of the mind. I can’t see the color anywhere else, whether beside it, in front of it, or somewhere behind my eyes.
This leads me to believe the color, which is the coloring agent itself, mixed as it is in the plastic in order to produce a singular result, a red pen, is why the color is in the pen.
In scientific terms: the properties of the material in the pen determine the wavelength and efficiency of light absorption, and therefor the color. My question is: what properties in the “color percept”, whether added, removed, or changed, can explain why the pen is red? — NOS4A2
What is the purpose of saying "The pen is red"? Why is that useful to say? — Harry Hindu
Does a red apple and red pen have the same constitution? Could we mean more than one thing in saying "the apple is red" vs. "the pen is red"? — Harry Hindu
There is no color in light. Color is in the perceiver, not the physical stimulus. This distinction is critical for understanding neural representations, which must transition from a representation of a physical retinal image to a mental construct for what we see. Here, we dissociated the physical stimulus from the color seen by using an approach that causes changes in color without altering the light stimulus. We found a transition from a neural representation for retinal light stimulation, in early stages of the visual pathway (V1 and V2), to a representation corresponding to the color experienced at higher levels (V4 and VO1). The distinction between these two different neural representations advances our understanding of visual neural coding.
There is no red "in" the pen. The pen just has a surface layer of atoms that reflects light with a wavelength of ~700nm. When light stimulates the eyes it causes the neurological activity responsible for colour percepts, and we name the colour percept ordinarily caused by 700nm light "red". — Michael
Physics and the neuroscience of perception have proven this naive realism false. — Michael
3. Colours, as ordinarily understood, are micro-structural properties or reflectances.
4. These micro-structural properties are mind-independent.
(1) and (4) are true, (2) and (3) are false. — Michael
Most of metaphysics is word play.You're forever caught up in language games and not metaphysics — Hanover
I want to take this a step further. I suspect we will agree that you can be sure, at least sometimes, that we can be confident the colour people see is the same. Like when we both choose the red pen. But when we prefix the word "subjective", that colour becomes uncertain.I cannot be sure that the subjective color people see is the same either. — Echarmion
yetThe property of the pen itself is noumenal. — Hanover
The noumena isn't known. — Hanover
So you want to say something like "the pen is red, but not actually red". This is enough to convince me that your account is mistaken. And shows well the sorts of word games you will play in your metaphysics.Maybe you think the pen is actually red, but I don't. — Hanover
Especially now we all use keyboards anyway.As I said in previous pages of this thread, asking for a red or blue pen is picky. — javi2541997
The "common sense" view, before any scientific study, is naive realism: — Michael
The fact that people talk about redness as if it is mind-independent does not entail that they are talking about redness as if (3) is true. People tend to talk about redness as if both (1) and (2) are true. — Michael
There is no red "in" the pen. The pen just has a surface layer of atoms that reflects light with a wavelength of ~700nm. When light stimulates the eyes it causes the neurological activity responsible for colour percepts, and we name the colour percept ordinarily caused by 700nm light "red". — Michael
The fact that people talk about redness as if it is mind-independent does not entail that they are talking about redness as if (3) is true. — Michael
I have not given a great deal of thought to the philosophy of color. — Leontiskos
It's a shame that we can't type in red here. — Banno
Colours are not subjective, but when you see a colour the seeing is ontologically subjective, and your opinions about the colour, e.g. that it's pretty, is epistemically subjective. — jkop
it looks as if you believe that there are mind-independent micro-structural properties that are not responsible for colour — Banno
The pen just has a surface layer of atoms that reflects light with a wavelength of ~700nm. When light stimulates the eyes it causes the neurological activity responsible for colour percepts, and we name the colour percept ordinarily caused by 700nm light "red".
If the pen has a surface layer of atoms that reflect light at with a wavelength of ~700nm then there is both red in the pen and the pen is red. — Leontiskos
the colours they see are mental percepts, whether they recognise them as colour percepts or not. — Michael
You asked me for a red pen. I hand you a pen which is covered by a red label and says: 'red ink pen'. You start to use the pen, but it turns out that the pen writes with blue ink. What happened here? — javi2541997
If that was true, then you could make the blind see by merely stimulating parts of their brains. — jkop
But since their brains have never recieved the right stimulation (e.g. from the eyes via the optic nerve), then the right neural connections for colour-vision have not been developed,. — jkop
Why is it useful to report what you see?What is the purpose of saying "The pen is red"? Why is that useful to say?
— Harry Hindu
You are reporting upon what you see. Maybe you want to be provided the red pen — Hanover
In reporting what you see, you seem to know there are other people with other minds that can perceive what you do, in the way that you do, or else what is the point of reporting what you see? Why use language at all?The noumena isn't known. — Hanover
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.