can you describe a colour?

yes

go ahead...

Can we reference other colours, eg 'pink is the blushing daughter of white and red'.. ?

Also, should I make a poll enquiring why you've created so many stupid threads?

can you describe a colour?
yes

you can describe colors by the range of visible wavelengths of light

PilpaX:

That does not describe colour, that only describes what produces colour.

To all:

The main controversy here is whether or ont a differently constructed eye would produce a different image of colour in the mind's eye of another creature. That is to say, could pink appear as green to a Martian?

PilpaX:

That does not describe colour, that only describes what produces colour.

To all:

The main controversy here is whether or ont a differently constructed eye would produce a different image of colour in the mind's eye of another creature. That is to say, could pink appear as green to a Martian?

PJ,

Don't you think you're 'hijacking' the thread here by spinning this (your) interpretation on the question at hand?

I think it goes without saying that two differently constructed eyes would "produce" [tenuous idea here...] a different image in the "mind's eye" [even more tenuous idea here...].

Assuming we were all to accept your notions of image 'production' and 'mind's eye', one would be forced to point out that your first observation is incorrect. You cannot divorce the concept of the means of 'production' of coulour from the experiencing of that colour.

In any case, while it's a good thing that you've brought a greater level of analysis to this discussion, I think the onus here is on the thread starter to explicate upon his position.

I think we can describe sound a little more fully than color. Nobody can tell you what a Bb sounds like except in relation to another sound like a bird or a washing machine, but at least we all agree that a Bb is higher than an A, which happens to correspond to the frequency of the sound waves. There's a dimension there that we all perceive the same way. Color isn't like that. No one would say that green is higher than yellow, even though that corresponds to the frequency of the light waves.

We can say that a sound is loud or soft, pure or full of overtones. Perhaps even that its overtones are harmonious or dissonant. But we can also say that it is higher than another sound. We can say that a color is bright or dim. We probably even all agree on the absence of color in white, black, and shades of grey. But other than that we can't relate colors to each other.

So they are very difficult to describe.

can you describe a colour?

It's a human interpretation of the quality differences in photons. Quantity differences would consequently correspond to brightness.

can you describe a colour?Red, blue, green, yellow.


If you saw the colour in your mind, then I have described it to you.


Black to the blind...

There are those that are really blind, who are missing the ability to see, no human will be able to describe a colour to such a person. Yet we are that person and we see.

glaucon:

"Don't you think you're 'hijacking' the thread here by spinning this (your) interpretation on the question at hand?"

Not so much hijack, as presume that this is what was being asked by the main participant to spark a discussion beyond one-word answers ("yes") or ("colour is wavelengths of light") neither which address the philosophical (specifically phenomological) question that could be present. If I was wrong, I'll gladly concede to take it to another thread if he finds my line of discussion unuseful.

"I think it goes without saying that two differently constructed eyes would "produce" [tenuous idea here...] a different image in the "mind's eye" [even more tenuous idea here...]. "

So you are suggesting that sensory data does not produce images in the mind? Or are you implying there is no sensory data or no mind? That is, by putting "produce" and "mind's eye" in quotes, you seem to be implying (specifically with your added parenthetical comments) that there is a false view being put forth for this concepts. If so, where do you propose my viewpoint has missed the mark?

"Assuming we were all to accept your notions of image 'production' and 'mind's eye', one would be forced to point out that your first observation is incorrect. You cannot divorce the concept of the means of 'production' of coulour from the experiencing of that colour."

Excuse me if you thought I was insinuating this because I am not. I am not suggesting that it is unimportant to speak of the means of colour production - I.E. wavelengths of visible light - but only that they are insufficient to speak of the image of colour. Does a computer, for instance, see pink when it brings up such and such wavelength? No.

Similarly, there are two reasons to suggest that wavelengths of colour are not important, namely, Subjective Idealism/Radical Empiricism (which I view as invalid but still worthy of speaking of) and imagination.

To elaborate on the second: If one can imagine colour without recourse to the source of colour at that particular moment, does not this show the image of colour can exist within the mind outside of wavelengths of light sparking a sensory image? Or even more vividly in dreams?

"In any case, while it's a good thing that you've brought a greater level of analysis to this discussion, I think the onus here is on the thread starter to explicate upon his position. "

Point noted.

Fraggle Rocker:

What about "lighter" or "darker"? Is this not analogous to "higher" and "lower"? "Pink is red mixed with white to produce a light red".

Cyperium:

"There are those that are really blind, who are missing the ability to see, no human will be able to describe a colour to such a person. Yet we are that person and we see. "

Nor can we imagine a whole different colour.

thanks for all the interpretations guys, but still no one has described a colour, and i meant this with out reference to other colours. The same question can baiscally be phrased, can you imagine a new colour one you have never seen before?

I think the answer to these are no and no, i think its a stimuli that cannot be explained by words, only reference to itself (comparison to different colours, shades etc.)

let me know what you think

just noticed P J just said 'Nor can we imagine a whole different colour.' guess we are on the same wavelength excuse the pun

It's called qualia. Not a new concept.

How about this oldy from Hume?
Imagine a series of blue cards that range the whole range of the blue spectrum from dark to light blue.
But there's one missing.
One shade of blue missing from the spectrum.
You've never seen this shade of blue before. You have no name for it.
Yet you can clearly see it's missing.

Qualia made tangible.
Somewhat.

It's called qualia. Not a new concept.

How about this oldy from Hume?
Imagine a series of blue cards that range the whole range of the blue spectrum from dark to light blue.
But there's one missing.
One shade of blue missing from the spectrum.
You've never seen this shade of blue before. You have no name for it.
Yet you can clearly see it's missing.

Qualia made tangible.
Somewhat.

qualia, new concept to me thanks i have some reading to do... your example doesnt really work though, if he knows one is missing he knows there should be one there and thus knows what it is, if he had never seen the shade before then he wouldnt know one is missing... and i said explain without reference to other colours

if he had never seen the shade before then he wouldnt know one is missing...

I beg to differ. You most certainly would see that one is missing. You'd be able to judge by the jag in the variation from one shade of blue to the next. You'd be able to see that there is a discrepancy of the even shading. You'd even be able to extrapolate just what the missing color should look like.

All without ever having seen the color before.

But, yes, you're quite right that you mentioned the 'without reference to other colrs' already. But, seriously, the original topic is somewhat limited... Not much to say about it.

Rocky, from Mask, demonstrated colors to a blind girl by using ice for blue. I forget the rest. But, it was a stupid concept. One which doesn't truly fly. But, it sure does play great on the big screen... what a tearjerker...



And. Yeah. As Perplexity mentions, the description is only the beginning of the concept. Qualia is about that aspect of any type of subjective experience which cannot be communicated. Cannot be shared.

The texture of tree bark, for instance.

Or the pain of passing a kidney stone.

All our subjective experience are ours and ours alone. We can never be sure that anyone else is experiencing the same as ours. In fact, we can practically be sure that they aren't.

However, in the end, it's the behavior that is caused by the qualia. The outward manifestation. That's important.

But, this leads to behaviorism which, when taken too far, misses the point as well.

What a merry chase philosophy and science can lead.

yeh thanks mate, that pretty much covered the topic.

So you are suggesting that sensory data does not produce images in the mind? Or are you implying there is no sensory data or no mind? That is, by putting "produce" and "mind's eye" in quotes, you seem to be implying (specifically with your added parenthetical comments) that there is a false view being put forth for this concepts. If so, where do you propose my viewpoint has missed the mark?


I admit that there is certainly sensory data. As for mind, depending on the definition, I will concede that we're all talking about the same basic concept. However, I am indeed suggesting that processed sensory data does not produce mental images. I could go on for quite a long time on this issue alone, but let this suffice: an image is a 'fixed' entity. By that I mean that any alteration (active or passive) to the image changes its representative power to the point where it indeed becomes a different image. That being said, perception is a dynamic activity, one that cannot be controlled: this is the immediacy of perception. When we speak of a mental image then, I would argue that this is a post hoc effect, quite apart from perception. To sum up, an image is created by the mind, rather than 'given' to us via perception. [I know... I've moved way too far into semiotics and Kant here...lol]



Excuse me if you thought I was insinuating this because I am not. I am not suggesting that it is unimportant to speak of the means of colour production - I.E. wavelengths of visible light - but only that they are insufficient to speak of the image of colour. Does a computer, for instance, see pink when it brings up such and such wavelength? No.


Ahhh.
Now I am in complete agreement with you.
Indeed there is no image of colour. And of course, a computer (or even a spectrophotometer) never 'sees' pink.

Nicely explicated.



Similarly, there are two reasons to suggest that wavelengths of colour are not important, namely, Subjective Idealism/Radical Empiricism (which I view as invalid but still worthy of speaking of) and imagination.

To elaborate on the second: If one can imagine colour without recourse to the source of colour at that particular moment, does not this show the image of colour can exist within the mind outside of wavelengths of light sparking a sensory image? Or even more vividly in dreams?


Interesting.
Personally, I would argue that we are the ones who create the image, as our experiences have taught us to.
What would you say about those people blind from birth?
If given sight somehow, would their eyes perceive light, would they identify and react to colour? I say they would. But, in the beginning, they would have to be taught the names of colours, and how to identify different colours. And it is this very task that allows us to close our eyes and 'picture' a colour.

Do you not choose what to look at?


Of course you do, but this isn't a case of controlling perception. Once can control when one perceives, and sometimes how well, but not the very action.



An accomplished artist has to learn to control his perception of colour because the perception is dynamic and relative to the context, in space and time.
The classic demonstration of this is to stare intently at a bright colour, then to look at a white screen to "see" the complimentary colour.

Try this for instance:

http://www.johnsadowski.com/big_spanish_castle.html

Stare at the image for a long time for best effect.


This is not control of perception.
This is control of mental conception.

Perception is an autonomic activity of the brain; how one elects to make use of the data is up to the individual.
A colour-blind person still 'receives' all the incoming frequencies; it's simply that their phisiological deficiency does not allow them sufficient discrimination. This is not a case of controlling perception.

Yes it is.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/perception

N.B. "Interpretation".

i.e. the conception of sensory input.


Hypnosis may control perception:

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro06/web1/wmcdonald.html



Not to mention hallucinogenic drugs and acupuncture.

--- Ron.


Rather than just say: ibid, I'll simply make 2 points.

1) We're in the philosophy section; that 'dictionary' is invalid.

2) Interesting, but inconclusive. In any case, what we're seeing effected here is one's awareness (or recollection) of perception, not their perception.

Patty-Rick:

"just noticed P J just said 'Nor can we imagine a whole different colour.' guess we are on the same wavelength excuse the pun "

Ha! I loved that. But yes, it does indeed seem.

But yes, I would agree that we cannot convey qualia.

As Mao Zedong said: "If you want to know the taste of a pear, you must change the pear by eating it yourself."

"qualia, new concept to me thanks i have some reading to do... your example doesnt really work though, if he knows one is missing he knows there should be one there and thus knows what it is, if he had never seen the shade before then he wouldnt know one is missing... and i said explain without reference to other colours "

One might assume that by being absent in the continuum of the blue colorus one could tell that it is missing by the interruption of progression.

Invert_Nexus:

"Rocky, from Mask, demonstrated colors to a blind girl by using ice for blue. I forget the rest. But, it was a stupid concept. One which doesn't truly fly. But, it sure does play great on the big screen... what a tearjerker..."

That was a very good scene and actually provoked the the first time I seriously thought philosophically about colours and perception.

Glaucon:

"I admit that there is certainly sensory data. As for mind, depending on the definition, I will concede that we're all talking about the same basic concept. However, I am indeed suggesting that processed sensory data does not produce mental images. I could go on for quite a long time on this issue alone, but let this suffice: an image is a 'fixed' entity. By that I mean that any alteration (active or passive) to the image changes its representative power to the point where it indeed becomes a different image. That being said, perception is a dynamic activity, one that cannot be controlled: this is the immediacy of perception. When we speak of a mental image then, I would argue that this is a post hoc effect, quite apart from perception. To sum up, an image is created by the mind, rather than 'given' to us via perception. [I know... I've moved way too far into semiotics and Kant here...lol]"

Let me be sure I understand you properly. Are you presenting a view whereby the mind immediatly interprets and thus changes the sensory image, or where it uses Kantian categories to take raw sensory data from the Ding an Sich and make it presentable to the mind? And do you assert that this interpretation is not based at all on the perception or could exist in the absence of said perception, or only that the sensory data provokes such interpretation and that it somewhat (if not fully) accords with it? Or are you actually just saying that sensory data, by being fed in constantly, is not subject to the "mental image" label as it is not a species of imagination? Because clearly you aren't claiming that we do not perceive things, yes?

"Ahhh.
Now I am in complete agreement with you.
Indeed there is no image of colour. And of course, a computer (or even a spectrophotometer) never 'sees' pink.

Nicely explicated."

My thanks.

"Interesting.
Personally, I would argue that we are the ones who create the image, as our experiences have taught us to.
What would you say about those people blind from birth?
If given sight somehow, would their eyes perceive light, would they identify and react to colour? I say they would. But, in the beginning, they would have to be taught the names of colours, and how to identify different colours. And it is this very task that allows us to close our eyes and 'picture' a colour. "

To what extent do you imagine we create the image?

And as to the blind from birth, I would agree with you that they would assuredly identify and react to colour, and yes, they'd certainly have to learn the names of each colour (just as we do when we're very young). But I am not so sure they'd have to be taught how to identify the colour, as the image of colour is pronounced enough to allow anyone for one to identify and distinguish different colours, even if one does not know the names, easily. That is to say, green looks very different from red, blue from yellow. This should not be a great problem for him.

perplexity:

"http://www.johnsadowski.com/big_spanish_castle.html

Stare at the image for a long time for best effect."

That is the coolest thing I have ever seen in a long while. Thanks for sharing!

"“ Recently an increasing amount of research has been conducted on the cognitive processes of the brain while under hypnosis. This research boom stems from questions regarding perception needing answers. It was found through trials and experiments addressing the mind under hypnosis that the body is able to perform and the mind is able to perceive things otherwise unperceivable or doable in the conscious state.... ” "

Does the article explain a few of these things?

"Not to mention hallucinogenic drugs and acupuncture."

Accupuncture altering perception? I have received acupuncture numerous times and not received any such things.

I would have to agree with Glaucon, though. This may alter perception, but does not change the process of perception.

Perplexity:

"Acid trippers commonly report a heightening of the sensation of colour in an extremely immediate sense; the sensation of sight vibrates with the beat of the heart and the rhythm of breathing. "

Yet one is still perceiving, if not more "vividly".

It's impossible to describe how a color looks. Take a person who's been blind from birth. This person can be the most knowledgable person in the world about color in terms of wavelengths, the eye, and the brain --but this person would never know <I> how</I> color looks. Nor could you explain to this person how color looks.

This philosophical notion of <I>how</I> something looks, feels, sounds, smells, tastes is commonly referred to as qualia.

For more info, take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

can you describe a colour?

visible vacancy

Perplexity:

Glaucon's argument was that the process of perception is beyond tampering with. No matter what one does, we still receive the same data, it is only how that data is interpreted that is changed.

Perplexity:

Glaucon's argument was that the process of perception is beyond tampering with. No matter what one does, we still receive the same data, it is only how that data is interpreted that is changed.

Exactly.
Thanks P-J.

Basically, what I'm supporting here is Kant's concept of apperception: we are physical creatures with various means of gathering sensory data, data that we are constantly 'bombarded' with. But, our ability to handle this massive assault of data is only possible by selectively processing and organizing the data.

Perplexity:

"I therefore point out that we do not receive the same data and it is certainly may be tampered with. Tampering would indeed be a fair description of the effect of an hullicinogenic drug."

A hallucinogenic drug - as well as various other things such as what you have mentioned - only alters the interpretation of said data on the foundation that in every instance, the same signals are being sent to the brain. That is to say, even if the dog appears to warp and move about in one's LSD spiral, the dog is actually being perceived the same way, but the brain itself is warping the image.

Perplexity:

"The signals are sent to the brain via synapse connections (nerve cells) which are directly affected.

The effect of LSD is thus largely because too much is sent to the brain; the filtering mechanism is tampered with and the brain is overloaded."


Actually, neuro-transmitters are a bit different than what you are thinking about. Neurotransmitters, such as serotonin and norepinephrine , are types of chemicals which aren't used to facillitate perception, but which are used to trigger reactions in the brain and body. Serotonin impacts the brain by triggering various reactions in parts of the brain which would not be used at certain times.

That was understood.

I therefore point out that we do not receive the same data and it is certainly may be tampered with. Tampering would indeed be a fair description of the effect of an hullicinogenic drug.


If you hold that we do not receive the same data, then the onus is upon you to account for this. Some sort of 'subjective' denial of ontological reality? And the accompanying refutation of the past 100 years of physical science.

And with respect to the effects of hallicuniogenic drugs etc., abberations do not make the rule. Rather, they are just that.

There is a source to our sensory data.
The means by which we receive this data is beyond our control.
What we choose to do with this data is within the realm of our control.

perplexity, you seem to be having a problem with both the first and second statement here, both of which are fully substantiated by current science.

You have obviously not bothered to read all the posts and the links I supplied.

I did account for it, with reference to synapse connections, the chemical process, physical science, not idle speculation.


I did indeed read your posts and the links. None of this accounts for some 'other-physics'.


Nobody said anything about aberration. (".b.rr.....")


I did.

Surely you can realize that being under the influence of an hallucinogenic does not constitute the normal state of perception....


Of couse it is controllable. When you shut your eyes it block the light and your capacity to see diminishes.


As I've already pointed out, this is not control of the data, merely control of reception.

According to a universal chart of colors (the title of which escapes me at thist time, though it was written and demonstrated by a German author and is a standard reference book), all colors (red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and violent) evoke the same feeling from all people of all cultures.
Color, among other things, therefore, is that which evokes a feeling.

Perplexity:

"LOL.

Not according to this:

http://www.escrs.org/eurotimes/November2002/visual.asp

i.e. Visual prostheses use neurotransmitter retinal chips to stimulate retinal function

If a man made device to replace the retinal function is not tampering with perception, then I don't know what is.

This is what I was thinking about:

http://www.escrs.org/eurotimes/November2002/visual.asp"

Um, the article doesn't state a single thing about neurotransmitters as the primarily carriers of visual stimuli? They reference the retina, they reference neurotransmitters in regards to the neural pathways (I never claimed this wasn't the case as obviously they are necessary for the neural system) but a neurotransmitter is not related to perception in and of itself.

Moreover, this is going besides the point. Even if what the information is being interpreted differently - which is precisely what the alteration of how the visual processing centres is - the information and the act of perceiving is not changed. Furthermore, even if we assume that it -is-, one is still perceiving, hence the process can be construed as being -the same thing-. That is, we can say that both humans and flies perceive, despite the fact that there is a likely huge difference in the qualia which they experience by virtue of their different systems.

"Did you ever take an hallucinogenic drug? I know what happens, from experience, and I did my homework."

No, I never have.

Perplexity:

"LOL.

Not according to this:

http://www.escrs.org/eurotimes/November2002/visual.asp

i.e. Visual prostheses use neurotransmitter retinal chips to stimulate retinal function

If a man made device to replace the retinal function is not tampering with perception, then I don't know what is.

This is what I was thinking about:

http://www.escrs.org/eurotimes/November2002/visual.asp"

Um, the article doesn't state a single thing about neurotransmitters as the primarily carriers of visual stimuli? They reference the retina, they reference neurotransmitters in regards to the neural pathways (I never claimed this wasn't the case as obviously they are necessary for the neural system) but a neurotransmitter is not related to perception in and of itself.

Moreover, this is going besides the point. Even if what the information is being interpreted differently - which is precisely what the alteration of how the visual processing centres is - the information and the act of perceiving is not changed. Furthermore, even if we assume that it -is-, one is still perceiving, hence the process can be construed as being -the same thing-. That is, we can say that both humans and flies perceive, despite the fact that there is a likely huge difference in the qualia which they experience by virtue of their different systems.

"Did you ever take an hallucinogenic drug? I know what happens, from experience, and I did my homework."

No, I never have.

Stick it to him Prince James. Stick it! Stick it!!!!

Nicholas, um, thank you?

If a man made device to replace the retinal function is not tampering with perception, then I don't know what is.

The human retina? Perfection?
Sure. Tell that to the blind spot.

The human retina? Perfection?
Sure. Tell that to the blind spot.

No doubt. Some other models of the eye in nature have the optic nerve attached to the rear of the retina, so that it doesn't have to exit THROUGH the retinal wall. How come we don't have this superior version of the eyeball? Because ours works ~just good enough~, no more. And nowhere near perfection.

It also shows that the eye evolved at least more than once, independently, demonstrating that it isn't the massive "Climp up Mount Improbable" that mystics love to pretend that it is.