Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Volker.Doormann · 03-25-2003, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
Volker: "If there is no observer, than there is no color. Color is only a state in the consciousness (of an observer) and has no relation to physics."

How does your "spirit theory" account for color blindness?

So, tell me, how would physical injury result in damage to our "spiritual" ability to perceive/identify color?

I think it is up top you give proofs for a physical dimension of colors in SI units before I lecture here on color blindness. BTW. My eyes show a slightly color blindness for red/green. This results in some difficulties to distiguish green in the dark from white or red. If there is bright light, I have no problems and like to create 'illusions of light' on paper using water colors. Have fun with doormann.org/vobi23e.htm.

Volker

Calzaer · 03-25-2003, 10:20 AM

So you only have 3/4ths of a spirit? Out of 8 colors, you can't detect two of them. I'm more spiritual than you are! Wow!

Still want to know how PHYSICAL injury affects a SPIRITUAL process.

Quote:

But a perceived color is not equal to an electromagnetic wave of a specific wavelength.

If you can "percieve" the color red from a 460nm wavelength, then maybe you're right. Otherwise, no. Every human on the face of the planet capable of seeing color sees 460nm as "blue". We can produce blue by projecting light at that wavelength.

You may as well say that reading is a spiritual thing, since words can't be physically measured. It'd still be bullshit, of course, but slightly tougher bullshit.

Nowhere357 · 03-25-2003, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Feather
Er, not according to m-w.com:

The "point" of this thread is that because humans allocate a collection of sound units (called "words") to a given phenomenon, that it must be "spiritual." In specific, the point is that since "color" (the word) is a creation of the human mind, then "color" (the physical phenomenon) doesn't exist in the physical realm.

There is nothing "spiritual" about color at all. Previous posters have done quite a good job at explaining the physics behind color. Perhaps they've failed to state the key phrase that destroys the "color is spiritual" argument. So I'll recap their statements and add an extra one:

1) light of a given wavelength strikes the rods and cones in the eye
2) The rods & cones send an electrical signal to the optical centers of the brain
3) Chemistry Happens.

That's it. That's the physics behind what goes on when light strikes the eye. Emboldened words are concept with a corresponding unit in SI.

The key statement is this: 4) The resulting perception is given the label "color" by humans. Nothing spiritual. We merely use "color" as a very terse shorthand. Consider these two statements:

1) "That ball is blue."
2) "The spherical shaped matter over there is composed of molecules that reflect more light of near 460nm in wavelength than any other wavelength, and this light has struck the rods and cones in my eye which causes my brain to register the interaction."

They both say exactly the same thing, except the former is more useful for purposes of everyday communication while the latter is an exercise is pedantics that physics students might amuse each other with.

Quote:

Originally posted by Feather
Er, not according to m-w.com:

The "point" of this thread is that because humans allocate a collection of sound units (called "words") to a given phenomenon, that it must be "spiritual." In specific, the point is that since "color" (the word) is a creation of the human mind, then "color" (the physical phenomenon) doesn't exist in the physical realm.

There is nothing "spiritual" about color at all. Previous posters have done quite a good job at explaining the physics behind color. Perhaps they've failed to state the key phrase that destroys the "color is spiritual" argument. So I'll recap their statements and add an extra one:

1) light of a given wavelength strikes the rods and cones in the eye
2) The rods & cones send an electrical signal to the optical centers of the brain
3) Chemistry Happens.

That's it. That's the physics behind what goes on when light strikes the eye. Emboldened words are concept with a corresponding unit in SI.

The key statement is this: 4) The resulting perception is given the label "color" by humans. Nothing spiritual. We merely use "color" as a very terse shorthand. Consider these two statements:

1) "That ball is blue."
2) "The spherical shaped matter over there is composed of molecules that reflect more light of near 460nm in wavelength than any other wavelength, and this light has struck the rods and cones in my eye which causes my brain to register the interaction."

They both say exactly the same thing, except the former is more useful for purposes of everyday communication while the latter is an exercise is pedantics that physics students might amuse each other with.

First, I said "spiritual" NEED NOT mean "supernatural". Your definitions confirm this.

Next, the point as you describe above, is non-sensical, and I am not defending it. Please take my comments in the spirit intended (lol).

You say "chemistry happens" and "that's it". I strongly disagree. The link from chemistry to a subjective awareness is not understood yet, is it? So the statement "that's it" is assertion, not fact. IMHO the nature of subjective existence is different in kind from objective existence, and so requires an explanation that is also different in kind. But that's off thread.

Slightly more modern definitions, from Webster's 9th:
spiritual adj 1) of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit.
spirit noun 4) the immaterial intelligent or sentient part of a person.

Clearly by this definition, the PERCEPTION of color can be seen as spiritual; actually, it REQUIRES a "spirit". Semantics, yes, but that was my point: rejecting a concept out-of-hand because it includes the word "spiritual" is not clearthought.

Feather, I'm sure you have no problem dismantling any theory that involves the "supernatural". I took this thread as I found it, I hope you understand. My apologies for the confusion.

You said
"1) light of a given wavelength strikes the rods and cones in the eye
2) The rods & cones send an electrical signal to the optical centers of the brain
3) Chemistry Happens.

That's it. That's the physics behind what goes on when light strikes the eye."

As I read this again, I think I agree that "That's the physics behind" perception of color. In that case, we need another step:

4) Perception happens.

I am not defending any positions from the original thread, I hope I've made that clear.

Mageth · 03-25-2003, 10:30 AM

I think it is up top you give proofs for a physical dimension of colors in SI units before I lecture here on color blindness.

I think that's been more than adequately done in previous posts.

BTW, what exactly is so "magical" about SI units?

But I might ask you to give proofs for any sort of a spiritual dimension for anything. Do you believe in mind/brain duality, that the "spirit" exists independently of the brain? In regards to that, how do you define "spiritual"?

My belief is that we merely perceive that our mind is separate from our physical body. I believe that the mind/consciousness is an emergent phenomenon from the physical, and thus is a physical, natural phenomenon, and is not separate from the physical. Damage or take away the physical, and you damage or take away the "spiritual".

It may be that you agree with this. If so, our disagreement may indeed just be a matter of semantics.

Nowhere357 · 03-25-2003, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by eh
Yeah yeah, the perception of "color" exists only in the mind. Photons of various energy levels do not have colors - as they are what cause the brain to generate them. You might say we live in a colorless universe.

But what is so special about that? The same could be said for all the senses. Pain, sound, smell and taste are all caused by real physics, but the perception of these things is entirely based in the mind. Since we have good reasons for believing all of those are caused due to events in the brain, the notion of a spiritual connection is a little out of place.

Again, "the notion of a spiritual connection is a little out of place" seems to assume "spiritual" means "supernatural". Which it can, of course. But read some dictionary definitions and see for yourself that there are other equally valid interpretations. Therefore the notion is not out of place at all.

Volker.Doormann · 03-25-2003, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Feather

1) light of a given wavelength strikes the rods and cones in the eye
2) The rods & cones send an electrical signal to the optical centers of the brain
3) Chemistry Happens.

Chemistry is physics of atomic properties of the outer shell.

Quote:

That's it. That's the physics behind what goes on when light strikes the eye.
Emboldened words are concept with a corresponding unit in SI.

No. You have not shown what the physical dimension of color in SI units is. Neither a wavelength measured in meters nor an electric potential measured in Volt is a unit to describe colors (red, magenta, white, brown).

PLEASE name a matching SI unit for colors.

Volker

Nowhere357 · 03-25-2003, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
We DETECT "color" objectively, and PERCEIVE color subjectively.

To my knowledge, the most you might say is that we may perceive color subjectively. As far as we know, we all "perceive" yellow etc. the same (unless there is some physical difference in our brain, e.g. due to injury). If we all perceive color the same, our color perception could harldy be called "subjective".

I don't understand your conclusion that color perception is not subjective. Doesn't perception mean "mental image" which is entirely subjective?

Feather · 03-25-2003, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nowhere357
First, I said "spiritual" NEED NOT mean "supernatural". Your definitions confirm this.

No, they don't. In fact, neither does the one you list. "Supernatural" includes "immaterial" as a subset.

There is no definition or usage of "spiritual" which does not imply that "spiritual" is supernatural.

Quote:

Next, the point as you describe above, is non-sensical, and I am not defending it. Please take my comments in the spirit intended (lol).

You say "chemistry happens" and "that's it". I strongly disagree. The link from chemistry to a subjective awareness is not understood yet, is it? So the statement "that's it" is assertion, not fact. IMHO the nature of subjective existence is different in kind from objective existence, and so requires an explanation that is also different in kind. But that's off thread.

Ahh, Argument from Ignorance. Just because every facet of the relationship between the chemical processes in the brain and the nature of perception is not spelled out in detail in "the literature," you are going to suppose that it's all "spiritual." Now that is nonsense.

I mean, really, how is it different from saying, "I don't know why the earth orbits the sun, therefore it must be the work of large invisible rubber bands."

Quote:

You said
"1) light of a given wavelength strikes the rods and cones in the eye
2) The rods & cones send an electrical signal to the optical centers of the brain
3) Chemistry Happens.

That's it. That's the physics behind what goes on when light strikes the eye."

As I read this again, I think I agree that "That's the physics behind" perception of color. In that case, we need another step:

4) Perception happens.

That's nice. Only your (4) is just a shorthand way of writing my (2)&(3). So you've done nothing except play games with semantics.

Volker.Doormann · 03-25-2003, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
I think it is up top you give proofs for a physical dimension of colors in SI units before I lecture here on color blindness.

I think that's been more than adequately done in previous posts.

No. Nothing.

Thank you for conversation.

Volker

Nowhere357 · 03-25-2003, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Calzaer

If you can "percieve" the color red from a 460nm wavelength, then maybe you're right. Otherwise, no. Every human on the face of the planet capable of seeing color sees 460nm as "blue". We can produce blue by projecting light at that wavelength.

You may as well say that reading is a spiritual thing, since words can't be physically measured. It'd still be bullshit, of course, but slightly tougher bullshit.

People can for example actually HEAR color. Sure that is due to brain defect, but so what? The phenomenae exists, and I have no doubt that some people see 460nm as other than blue. Enter keyword "color perception abnormalities" for examples.

The "3/4 spirit" stuff must be from the other thread, and I'm not commenting on that. The bullshit I see is ASSUMING "spiritual" means "supernatural".

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-25-2003, 10:30 AM	#24
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	I think it is up top you give proofs for a physical dimension of colors in SI units before I lecture here on color blindness. I think that's been more than adequately done in previous posts. BTW, what exactly is so "magical" about SI units? But I might ask you to give proofs for any sort of a spiritual dimension for anything. Do you believe in mind/brain duality, that the "spirit" exists independently of the brain? In regards to that, how do you define "spiritual"? My belief is that we merely perceive that our mind is separate from our physical body. I believe that the mind/consciousness is an emergent phenomenon from the physical, and thus is a physical, natural phenomenon, and is not separate from the physical. Damage or take away the physical, and you damage or take away the "spiritual". It may be that you agree with this. If so, our disagreement may indeed just be a matter of semantics.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.