Volker.Doormann

No. My example proves only, that there are real perception of color without any outer source of an electromagnetic energy with measurable optical wavelengths.

This is topic.

Volker

Calzaer

So if wavelength DOESN'T measure color, I'm sure you can see 460nm as red. Right?

STILL waiting for the explanation of physical injury taking away your spirit.

Also STILL waiting for your response to my claim you only have 3/4ths of a spirit.

Mageth

No. My example proves only, that there are real perception of color without any outer source of an electromagnetic energy with measurable optical wavelengths.

Yes, but so what? All that illustrates to me is that our brains can "perceive" color or, rather, generate the perception (or as Corona688 correctly said, the "sensation") of color without the stimulus of light waves striking the retina.

No "spirit" required.

Valmorian

I will agree with that, although I would suggest that the evidence points towards color perception being a purely physical process.

alek0

Volker,

again, colour is defined with CIE coordinates. CIE coordinates do not have a unit because they are dimensionless, since they are calculated as ratios of different components (to put it simply, actual calculation is a bit more complicated).

There are a number of physical quantities which don't have SI unit since they are dimensionless. To name a few examples - dielectric function, refractive index, absorption (but not absorption coefficient which is expressed in m^-1), reflectance, transmittance.

Perception of colour is something which happens in the brain as a result of signal processing of signals coming from the eyes. These signals can be result of incoming electromagnetic radiation (i.e. signal) or, if you close your eyes tightly or press them lightly or if you have glaucoma and see rainbows around lightsources the signal is the result of the noise in the detector. In the same way if you heat up you photodiode or CCD you'd get signal in the dark as well. The process is completely analogous to photodiode or CCD or PMT detecting the spectrum and computer calculating CIE coordinates.

I would not call a process spiritual if it can be done by a machine. Machine could actually do a better job of it than Volker or any other colour blind person. My computer or my luminance meter may not know it is measuring red or green, but who ever looks on the screen at two numbers can now which it is. In other words, you can have iinformation on the color with a help of the machine even if your own detector (i.e. eyes) or computer (i.e. part of the brain processing visual signals) is faulty. You can even be entirely blind and if hear your computer telling result (0.33,0.33) you will now that the object or lightsource is white even though you can't see it. Your computer can't tell you "this is pretty blue" but can sure tell you something is blue.

echidna

If I’m not mistaken, Volker is using colour to illustrate the legitimate philosophical problem of qualia. As a philosophical problem, I don’t think it’s as simple as materialists would make it.

http://www.geocities.com/brent_silby/silby014.html Searching under “qualia” reveals a mass of further discussion.

echidna

I'm not strong in Philosophy, but if I understand correctly, yes one can make a machine to detect blue as defined by what the majority of people recognise by those wavelengths corresponding to "blue", but can one make a machine to detect the particular "blueness" which I recognise as blue ?

Automaton replication of animate consciousness is not equivalent to duplication, the map is not the terrain.

Nowhere357

Feather, "immaterial" means "not consisting of matter". Therefore abstract concepts ARE immaterial. By definition.


Well said, and vice-versa. (BTW, there IS evidence. No fear is necessary.)


Please tell me what assertion I made, which you are referring to?

Meanwhile, I had given you the dictionary definitions of "spirit" and "spiritual", which allowed my conclusion that "spiritual" need not mean "supernatural". You asserted that

This is incorrect per the definitions as given.


But you also said:

So you DID make that claim.

Okay. I tend to think of the theory that subjective awareness arises from the chemical properties of the brain (your position), to be essentially emergent theory. Are you saying that you disagree with emergent theory?


Now you can see that is not the case.


I said:
Your response:
I don't know what xian thinks about "assumption". I think "assumption" means to assume that something is true.


Concerning "Argument from Ignorance", you said:
I didn't know that, and concede the point ( I assumed it was invective, lol). Thanks for the link.

Well, let's see:
I have made neither argument. you said:
I've already shown that your assumption that I suppose it's all "spiritual" was incorrect. Therefore I made no "argument from ignorance".

Actually, your position that chemical processes are sufficient to explain subjective awareness, violates "something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false", hmm?


Again, for clarity:
Concerning definitions for "spiritual" and "spirit", I said:
You had said:
I have shown that position to be incorrect.

Volker.Doormann

If you have followed my argumentation i this thread, then you know, that that, what is written as convention from CIE, is based only on human creatures perception of color. I have given a reference to this truth.

Color is a dimension with its values of white, yellow, brown, pink, blue, ultramarine, cadmium yellow, etc. Colors have no numbers.



That, what you mention as dimensionless, are ratios or factors of well known physical constants of nature with well known values. In the case of dielectra this is the electric constant »epsilon« of 8.854 187 817 x 10^-12 F m^-1.

Ratios or factors of physical constants or physical dimensions as p.e. a transmittance of 1 or 100% is a ratio of real intensities measurable in Watt m^-2, while Watt and meter are well known SI units.



You repeat an argumentation, to which I have already replied. I think, you do not have read it, because you say nothing to my reply.

The topic is the nature of color. 'Has color a physical dimension, which proves color as an existing physical part of nature or not?' P.e. Donald Duck has no physical existence, but each photon, each mass, and each intensity measurable in Watt ^m-2. I have argued, that color has no physical existence. I'm waiting, that any one can show, that color has a physical provable existence in a scientific exact manner.

Thank you

Volker

Volker.Doormann

I think, that there is a nature to be understand. To this I think arguments on the subject are helpful to find the truth. I think truth is not to find in persons.

From this it is irrelevant what I see. From this the spirit of a person is irrelevant. From this it is irrelevant if a person is claiming something. Relevant is only the truth of nature.

Volker