Do you understand what pain is? What smells and tastes are? Vision isn't special.
I'm not concerned with the adjective "red". I'm concerned with the noun "red". I've been over this with Banno and others.
You can talk about pens as being coloured, just as you can talk about stubbing one's toe as being painful. But colours and pain are not mind-independent properties of pens or stubbing one's toe; they are the mental percepts (which may be reducible to brain states) that pens and stubbing one's toe cause to occur.
Besides, I can dream about red dragons. The adjective "red" is not being applied to some mind-independent dragon that reflects 700nm light.
But if I were to give a general account of the meaning of "the X is red" or "red X" it would be something like "the X looks red" or "red-looking X". The noun "red" in the phrases "looks red" and "red-looking" does not refer to a mind-independent property.
The noun “red” doesn’t refer to anything — NOS4A2
But your general account uses adjectives, not nouns. — NOS4A2
I know we smell, taste, and see our environment, yes. — NOS4A2
And some of those things, like colour and pain, aren't. — Michael
A colour is open to view, while its seeing is in the head. The seeing is just the conscious awareness of the colour, while the colour is the bundle of lights and pigments that emerge as a colour when seen under ordinary conditions. It's a way of using light, which is open for anyone who has the ability. It ain't in the head. — jkop
The "naive" belief that the world is coloured, and that colours exist outside the mind, is perfectly compatible with ordinary language and the science. — jkop
Do you deny that dreams and hallucinations have colour? — Michael
But for a science-buff like you they're all "percepts" — jkop
the colour is the bundle of lights and pigments that emerge as a colour when seen under ordinary conditions — jkop
These colours are percepts, they occur when the visual cortex is active, and all of this happens when awake as well. — Michael
But for a science-buff like you they're all "percepts"
— jkop
Yes, that’s what neuroscience shows. — Michael
Which is just as selective, unscientific and false as your belief that colour perception is all about neuroscience. — jkop
People universally believe that objects look colored because they are colored, just as we experience them. The sky looks blue because it is blue, grass looks green because it is green, and blood looks red because it is red. As surprising as it may seem, these beliefs are fundamentally mistaken. Neither objects nor lights are actually “colored” in anything like the way we experience them. Rather, color is a psychological property of our visual experiences when we look at objects and lights, not a physical property of those objects or lights. The colors we see are based on physical properties of objects and lights that cause us to see them as colored, to be sure, but these physical properties are different in important ways from the colors we perceive.
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).
Hmmm this seems a really, really difficult account to accept. Is this to say that there is a 'correct' mode of seeing, and anyone who sees 430THz and does not accept they are seeing 'Red' is objectively wrong, or has retarded(in the medical sense) vision? — AmadeusD
Why difficult — jkop
where does that idea come from that there could be a 'correct' mode of seeing? — jkop
Would you ask if there is a 'correct' mode for digestion? — jkop
To see it is a biological fact, just how nature works, and some of us may have better eyes than others. — jkop
colour perception is all about neuroscience
— jkop
Are you suggesting that the science of vision doesn't explain Red? — AmadeusD
when seen under ordinary conditions
— jkop
I smell Tuna... — AmadeusD
No, are you trolling? — jkop
Why, would you prefer extraordinary conditions? — jkop
To see it is a biological fact, just how nature works, and some of us may have better eyes than others.
— jkop
This is, in fact, to say there is a 'correct' way of viewing hte world, biologically. Someone looking at 430THz of light, and seeing Blue, is 'wrong' (whether that's a physical aberration or otherwise..). — AmadeusD
Yes, that’s what neuroscience shows. Human consciousness does not extend beyond the brain. — Michael
It sounds like you're saying that neuroscience shows that human consciousness doesn't extent beyond the brain. It doesn't show that. — frank
Therefore, if we want to talk about it, we'll have to back down into philosophy. — frank
To the extent that one might want to argue for something like idealism or substance dualism or panpsychism, sure. So if that's how you want to defend naive colour realism then commit to one of them. — Michael
But as it stands the scientific view is that colour experiences correspond to neural processes — Michael
and so that distal objects and their properties cannot causally influence colour experience except by causally influencing neural processes. — Michael
Frequencies of light are not color... according to those I'm arguing against. — creativesoul
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.