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