Nowhere357

I agree with this. I avoid the term elsewhere when I can.
So practice parsimony, yes. However, when someone introduces the term, we should try to understand what is meant, yes? And not reject out-of-hand.
IMO the word is useful and valid. I would like to reclaim it from the disaster of religion. For example, some people have the very real human need to go on a "spiritual quest". Somehow, "subjective awareness quest" just sucks.

Calzaer

Nowhere:

The "3/4ths of a spirit" thing was directed at Volker, since he can't see all the colors and claims that it's the spiritual part of our being that allows colors to be percieved. Thus, he has 3/4ths of a spirit, as he can only percieve 3/4ths of the color spectrum.


Volker:
Once again, a wavelength measured in meters DOES INDEED describe color. 460nm is "blue". It's blue whether you're an atheist, a Christian, a house cat, or a mass spectrometer. When you can produce a 460nm wave that others percieve as "red", you'll have a point. Otherwise you're just going "Nuh-uh! Nuh-uh! I can't hear you! Lalalalalala!"

Nowhere357

I like that, really I do. Currently, brains are the ONLY machine that can perceive anything, right? So my comment holds.

BTW, I think the logic you used here, would allow me to say, for example, that "life" is evidence of an "animating force". So it's maybe not a real good defense.

Nowhere357

How about this: do dead people see color, even if light enters the eye? Clearly, perception of color requires subjective awareness, and not "merely" light hitting the eye. How much clearer can it be made than that? Sheesh. :banghead:

Mageth

I like that, really I do. Currently, brains are the ONLY machine that can perceive anything, right? So my comment holds.

Well, IMO that depends on one's definition of perceive, I guess. From Foldoc:

perceive - <epistemology, psychology, phenomenology> to detect or become aware of via the outward senses of sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell, and also (according to the usage of some) via "reflection" (Locke) or introspection.

Now one can argue that, under this definition, a machine with a mechanical eye can perceive an object of a particular color and pick it out from among a group of differently-colored objects. I think you would label that as merely detection, but "detect" is part of this definition.

Whether the machine is "aware" is a different question. However, I think as far as "perception" goes, it's more a matter of degree (or simply a matter of definition).

Machine intelligence is probably a topic for a different thread.

BTW, I think the logic you used here, would allow me to say, for example, that "life" is evidence of an "animating force". So it's maybe not a real good defense.

I don't exactly follow, but that's OK.

One might say, in a sense, life is the "animating force." I definitely don't think there's some external "force" that animates life beyond the "mundane" electrochemical reactions that enable life.

Corona688

I think what's going on here, again, is an argument over terminology. As far as it generally matters in real life, color **IS** photon wavelengths and such; they can be measured, duplicated, and we have studied them in great depth. So when we say color, we mean the physical properties of the light.

When you say color, you're talking about the SENSATION OF color. Same word, totally different meaning.

I think we can toss parts 2 and three, leaving the 3 definitions in part 1. So now we have to see what it means to percieve...


So, you're saying that human brains are needed to be AWARE of color. Until we figure out how the human brain works, I don't think that can be settled; I do think the human brain is purely a device of chemicals, and as such, isn't 'aware' of color any more than a computer reacting to a CCD camera is aware of color, but nobody's ever gonna be happy with that unless I can totally prove that, which ain't gonna happen.

So, in summary, I don't know.

Volker.Doormann

No. Wavelength are measured in meters. I wait since some days, that any one tell me what is the SI units for color. (???)



No. Please read my example with closed eyes.

It would be much clearer if you could say what the physical dimension of color is in SI units.

(I think I have ask for this a half dozen times (?) )

Volker

Valmorian

It seems to me that you are referring to the neurological basis of 'seeing color'. Why do you presume this is 'spiritual'? Surely there is no reason to believe it is anything other than the signals your brain is producing to indicate you are 'seeing red'?

Mageth

No. Please read my example with closed eyes.

Hmm. That might be possible if I used my spirit to read it. Otherwise, a kinda strange request.

(sorry, couldn't resist)

Volker.Doormann

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Calzaer
[B]Once again, a wavelength measured in meters DOES INDEED describe color. [/QOUTE] [B]

A wavelength measured in meters is one dimension of space.

The science of physics is using dimensions of length, time and mass, called 'mgs system' to describe all physical phenomena in nature. If it would be possible to describe colors in meters, then it should be easy to describe the color 'white' in the SI unit in meters. But because no one until now could describe the color 'white' in SI units, one can taken all postings arguing in a similar way not scientific seriouisly.

Volker