[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 82 KB, 300x287, color_space-300x287[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4920407 No.4920407 [Reply] [Original]

Hey /sci/, if color doesn't exist, how can screens be tested for color accuracy?

>> No.4920409

color exists

>> No.4920416

>>4920409
Then why does so much of /sci/ say it doesn't?

>> No.4920417

>>4920416
because trolling

>> No.4920427

color is a social construct

>> No.4920428

>>4920416
>>4920407
Don't be naive, of course color doesn't exist. What does exist however, is light of different wavelength, we can measure it, and so accurately predict which sense of color will it activate in a (normal) human.

>> No.4920431

>>4920428
>>4920427
Fuck you /sci/

>> No.4920433

Just because it's something you perceive it so yourself doesn't mean it doesn't exist, I don't know why you folks get to that conclusion. It doesn't matter if it is the same color or if we use the same words for it, because THAT is a social construct, it's a convention.

Screens are tested for color accuracy, because they work on a mathematical basis, wavelenghts and so on.

Say your red is actually green (whatever). The printed red and the color red on the screen will be the same green. That's the accuracy of the screen, it's the screen in relation to everything else, not yourself.

>> No.4920434
File: 38 KB, 527x354, Mike Troll.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4920434

>>4920417
Color doesn't exist.
Much like a dick that has not been in your mouth OP.

>> No.4920439

>>4920431
its the samefag op, perhaps you are as well

>> No.4920440

>>4920433
>Say your red is actually green (whatever). The printed red and the color red on the screen will be the same green.
>Say your red is actually green

This is why /sci/ is shit. As soon as it steps outside of it's field, it think it's a philosopher.

>> No.4920441

>>4920431
Why are you mad? Something we said?

>>4920433
Well yeah, that's basically what I said, but when people say colors they usually mean the impression, or qualia of colors, and this is what I said doesn't exist, at least not objectively, physically, concretely, whatever...

>> No.4920442

>>4920439
I made these posts:

>>4920407
>>4920416
>>4920431
>>4920440

>> No.4920444

>>4920440
This is one of the rare occasions when "2deep4u" actually applies. What he said makes perfect sense, its philosophy 101, pretty simple - primary and secondary qualities, dispostion etc.

>> No.4920447

>>4920444
What is it is entirely unnecessary.

>> No.4920445

>>4920441
no, even the qualia of color exists. whatever you meant, you clearly said "exists" not "is experienced in same exact way"

>> No.4920454

>>4920445
this is proven by tests with multicolored buttons, if you can distinguish wavelengths you see colors, whatever they fucking look like

>> No.4920448

>>4920440
Oh, and fun fact: my green could be your red and we would probably never know, it's perfectly possible that we all have different impressions of different wavelengths.

>> No.4920455

>>4920448
Who gives a shit. It doesn't affect anyone. Well, I shouldn't say anyone, that's too inclusive.

>> No.4920456

>>4920445
I said it doesnt exist "objectively, physically, concretely", the same way emotions don't exist.

>> No.4920460

>>4920456
>implying something needs to exist "objectively, physically, concretely" for it to exist

>> No.4920461 [DELETED] 

>qualia

Stopped reading their. And I thought /sci/ was an atheist board ...

>> No.4920466

>>4920461
>bringing religion into this

FUCK OFF

>> No.4920467

>>4920456
bitch you are starting to make me mad, you said it 10 posts after and that is still not true. emotions exist, i'm exhibiting one now. you can revert to solipsism if you wish and say I don't exist, just because you can't be proven wrong doesn't make you right

>> No.4920464

>>4920455
...it's just a little bit of info I thought was interesting? Why the fuck are you so mad?

>> No.4920468

>>4920464
Sorry. It's just that the way people talk about it makes me mad for some reason. It just seems so inconsequential.

>> No.4920469

>>4920460
I made no claims about its existence outside of these categories.

>>4920461
Are you denying that the problem of qualia is an interesting and relevant problem? I you said that to my face motherfucker

>> No.4920470

>>4920469
* I wish you said

>> No.4920471

>>4920466
I'm not the retard who believes in magic.

>>4920469
Your fairy tales aren't real. Deal with it, tard, and go back to /x/.

>> No.4920473

>>4920469
Not him, but I also deny that this 'problem' even exists. Actually, let's stop getting mad and fighting. Please explain to me, in simple terms, how exactly the 'problem of qualia is an interesting and relevant problem.'

>> No.4920472

how can people say emotions don't exist without any irony at all

>> No.4920474

>>4920471
Oh you again. Do you want do deny that meditation works again? Do you want to sage a thread about randomly generating pictures? If anyone has a dogmatic view of life, it's you.

>> No.4920479

>>4920471
would like to point out that while we both sage I'm not this person, and qualia exists. to say the opposite means you don't know what the term qualia means

>> No.4920480

>>4920474
Science isn't dogma. Science is true. Your fairy tale garbage on the other hand is silly fantasies and you should be embarrassed for believing in magic.

>> No.4920484

>>4920480
Look at this article, from another thread on /sci/:
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120727-the-wind-beneath-my-wheels
Specifically this quote:
>“The thing that was most surprising to me was how much even professional engineers and scientists will not only rely on their intuition, but accept their intuition over a straightforward rigorous analysis, and real world proof.”

I'm looking at your typing style, and it makes me laugh at the irony in your words.

>>4920479
OP here, it's okay. He has a very unique typing style that can be spotted from a mile away.

>> No.4920485

>>4920479
And I'd like to add that I did not mean to imply that anything that doesn't exist physically doesn't exist at all, I believe qualia and emotions exists, but they are a state of conscientiousness, why these other things are properties of physical universe itself, I feel there is a need to distinguish these categories, just like we distinguish primary and secondary qualities.

>> No.4920489

>>4920479
I do know what qualia mean and they are not real. They are magic troll shit made up by religionfags and only children and retards are fooled by it.

>>4920484
Go ahead and show me the "real world proof" of your supernatural qualia crap.

>> No.4920490

people that believe in color essence are the ones that believe in love/god/numbers/etc. Aka platonist

>> No.4920495

>>4920490
aka retards

>> No.4920509

>>4920489
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTWmTJALe1w

qualia is the subjective experience of an event. you cannot deny it

>> No.4920514

>>4920509
Of course I can and from a scientific point of view I have to deny magic. There is no fucking evidence.

>> No.4920518

>>4920514
FALSE DICHOTOMY

WOOOOOO

>> No.4920519

>>4920407
Color is a metaphysical phenomena; the frequencies that are qualified as color are not. Color is subjective; light wave frequencies are objective. Ultimately, linking specific colors to specific light wave frequencies comes from mutuality of experience (color-blindness being a limited experience compared to those without it).

>> No.4920521

>>4920514
you are one of those retards that says obamacare is socialist right? two different nouns rarely mean the same thing, magic=/=qualia you dense motherfucker

>> No.4920526

>>4920518
Ever heard of Occam's razor, you fucking retard? There is no reason to believe in fairies and magic without evidence.

>>4920521
Qualia are metaphysical supernatural bullshit and you know it. Go be a retard somewhere else.

>> No.4920532
File: 9 KB, 300x300, sneaky-face-gif_176404495[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4920532

>>4920526
>Occam's razor

There's that dogmatic tone again...

>> No.4920547

>>4920526
>>4920526
qualia is not mind-body dualism, it is not metaphysical at all. it is what separates you from a well written software and while it is poorly explored due to its subjective nature it is not scientific to outright dismiss it as magic. you are experiencing it right now, it is the act of experiencing. i'm not attaching any mysticism to it, its just what it is, conscious experience.

>> No.4920556

>>4920532
It's called science. Educate yourself, idiot.

>>4920547
Qualia is the best example of anti-scientific dualism shit. Get your retardation out of /sci/.

>> No.4920562

>>4920547
I'm not the guy...
To me, qualia and metaphysical experience are one in the same... Meta- that which is after, beyond, adjacent to the -physical.

>> No.4920574

>>4920556
your arguments for the past 5 posts have been "x is y" and "NO U" so it is you that should fuck off.

>> No.4920575

>>4920562
Wouldn't that be paraphysical? But what do I know, eh?

>> No.4920582

>>4920574
>>4920562
>>4920547
>>4920532
We really need to come up with a name for this guy. You can always pick him out by his express use of the word 'magic' and the phrase 'fairy tales'.

>> No.4920583

>>4920574
Fucking retard. There is no "soul" and there is nothing paranormal. If you believe in magic, you are dumb and don't belong on a science board.

>> No.4920588

>>4920583
Fucking retard. X is not Y

>> No.4920597

>>4920588
Science and logic. Learn them.

>> No.4920603

>>4920562
Qualia from our current understanding is an emergent property. It is not physical only in the sense it is not made of matter, but it is irrevocably tied to it.

>> No.4920606

>>4920597
Science and logic. Use them.

>> No.4920622

>>4920603
That shit has no evidence. It's on one level with ghosts, demons and aliens.

>>4920606
I do.

>> No.4920630

>>4920603
Agreed, just as all [metaphysical] experience (ex color) is tied to physical interactions in the brain. Seems to me, at least as it relates to us within the system....that metaphysical and qualia are both emergent properties.

>> No.4920631

>>4920622
No.

>> No.4920634

>>4920630
>emergent
You have no idea what this means. Stop making up excuses for your non-observable (read: non-existing) fantasy shit.

>> No.4920640

>>4920622
>That shit has no evidence.
Then ultimately nothing has evidence for anything since one must use perception in order to make observations in the first place.

>> No.4920649

>>4920433
Here.

...What have I done?

Damn /sci/, I hate you. This thread is horrible.

>> No.4920650

>>4920582
Mad man Moon

>> No.4920646

>>4920640
Are you trolling or mentally retarded? An imaginary entity that cannot be tested and has no observational evidence is fucking non-existent.

>> No.4920648

>>4920630
http://fora.tv/2012/04/18/Incomplete_Nature_How_Mind_Emerged_From_Matter

watch that for some top tier metaphysics


>>4920634
No.

>> No.4920658

>>4920648
Right, keep saying "no". Keep denying science, you ignorant religitard.

>> No.4920660

>>4920646
'qualia' is just a renaming of a common thing. Can you guess what it is?

>> No.4920664

>>4920658
You keep saying the same bullshit as well, mine atleast wastes less of my time but is equally valid.

>> No.4920668

>>4920646
Color is imaginary as well. We just rely on the mutuality of experience with others as being "objective", even though it isn't. Referring back to >>4920519

In order to observe or test anything, you must first perceive or "imagine" it. Then we just weed out those observations that do not match others observations....but in the end it's still just a belief.

>> No.4920669

>>4920660
It's a renaming of "soul", "consciousness" or however religionfags want to justify dualism, even after it has been scientifically disproved.

>>4920664
Mine is backed up by science, yours is pseudo-religious idiocy.

>> No.4920672

>>4920669
>It's a renaming of "soul", "consciousness" or however religionfags want to justify dualism

Nope. Try again.

>> No.4920674

>>4920668
Color is frequency of light. Nothing magic. It's physics. Go to school, moron.

>> No.4920678

>>4920672
That's what it is, retard. It's like another pathetic attempt of christfags to "disprove" science.

>> No.4920687

>>4920674
Then explain color-blindness...different wavelengths of light creating the same subjective color.

>> No.4920685

>>4920669
you saying its backed by science does not make it so, you are not saying anything worthwhile and until you demonstrate how science disproves consciousness every future reply will be "no". don't be fooled, I'm enjoying the fuck out of this

>> No.4920691

>>4920678

Guess again.

>> No.4920693

>>4920687
>>4920674

You two are just arguing over definitions at this point.

>> No.4920696

Wow sorry I'm late and all.
Colors exist and have for the majority of people an objective value that can be tested.
Most brains in early development form associations concerning light wavelengths by how they cross and combine and are then able to form a sort of metric around certain standard physiological effects that occur at the cellular level due to a number of biochemistry-level-shit phenomena, like how the proteins in cone cells to detect red vs green vs blue are slightly more or less efficient at rearming after triggering (in /sci/ layman's terms, the different proteins that detect color, as well as brightness, have slightly different clock cycles inherent to the shape of the proteins).
In addition to the few physiological differences the brain is able to build a rough metric around, it also has much more obvious (to us) reactions to light in different circumstances it can use. A commonly known different reaction from a different wavelength is that of red light preserving our night vision.

>> No.4920700

>>4920696
Around all these physiological and physics based differences, the brain is able to then build a pattern that allows it to map red across green across blue. Not all brains finish this process in early development and so this brain may lack an intuitive grasp of color that can be easily seen in a controlled environment with a simple test. It is relatively simple to make up for the lack of full development by simple exercises that show colors changing up and down the spectrum in the correct order with different shades amongst other variables in appearance.
More recent tests to determine a human's grasp on any sort of stable color mapping system have been based around basic principles of wave physics. These usually involve asking whether a layman can intuitively and reliably guess the changes that combining certain wavelengths of light ought to have on the overall color, something a physicist can normally guess by having a grasp on waveform principles and the general mechanics of waves and their interactions.

>> No.4920697

>>4920685
>shifting the burden of proof
You are retarded. It's you who has to prove that your paranormal entities exist. Protip: You can't. The lack of evidence and testability suggests to deny their existence.

>>4920687
There is no "subjective" color. Color is frequency. I already told you this, moron. Color blindness means their physical body can't perceive a color because of genetic defects. No magic, no soul.

>> No.4920699

speaking of color blindness, finally found the last nail in the coffin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary's_room

>> No.4920703

i dont know about color, but i know that colour exists

>> No.4920706

>>4920674
>>4920674
>color is frequency of light.

Wrong. Color is our perception of those frequencies of light. Perception is subjective. Subjectivity implies fabrication. Red, blue, green are all made-up concepts to attempt to describe what most humans see when we look at objects reflecting those light frequencies.

>> No.4920702

>>4920700
So yes, color does exist "objectively, physically, concretely" for people whose brains efficiently recognize colors. For those who don't, we might say they are "non-functionally colorblind," that their brains are unnecessarily making up substitutions for colors they can already see and distinguish. In other words, their brains are fooling themselves, and, if describing a physiological process with "most efficiently" as meaning correctly, then these people are interpreting color wrong.

Color has "qualia" to an extent, just as much as say, the finer points of many science disciplines have a qualia indistinguishable to those without the senses to perceive those finer points.
Also, just to stir up more controversy, emotions, even very fine ones like "awe" or "mischievousness" have very distinct physiological forms that may be influenced in the lab by chemical or properly placed massive magnets and the like. (the emotion for "awe" as in awestruck, has been successfully reproduced in the lab on many people by hit a small section of the brain with em waves, leaving most people describing it as "a sort of religious experience."

>> No.4920713

>>4920703
We have maybe a little elbow space for etymology here.

>> No.4920718

>>4920706
>subjectivity

Care to provide like at least a little bit of evidence? I mean I could make up a lot of untestable fantasy nonsense as well. It would still not be scientific. Science deals with facts and evidence.

>> No.4920721

>>4920706
YES someone points it out! All words are subjective to an extent, red, blue, green are all made up words, just like "Scott" or "math" that we have conventions on.

>> No.4920724

>>4920702
better late than never, welcome

>>4920697
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary's_room
proof that refutes all knowledge is physical knowledge

>> No.4920732

>>4920718
don't worry about his guy:
>>4920706
he is making an argument from logic not from science
"It would still not be scientific. Science deals with facts and evidence."
Science is basically anything at all that we can study using the scientific method.

>> No.4920730

>>4920724
in case you are lazy:

(P1) Any and every piece of physical knowledge in regards to human color vision has been obtained (by the test subject, Mary) prior to her release from the black-and-white room. She has all the physical knowledge on the subject.

(P2) Upon leaving the room and witnessing colour first-hand, she obtains new knowledge.

(C) There was some knowledge about human colour vision she did not have prior to her release. Therefore, not all knowledge is physical knowledge.

>> No.4920735

>>4920724
Your philosophical bullshit doesn't belong here.

>>4920732
Science explains everything. If something cannot be tested by science, it doesn't exist.

>> No.4920741

>>4920735
No.

>> No.4920742

>>4920718
Why the fuck should I post charts, graphs, and statistics to prove that the way the world is perceived is subjective for every unique individual? It's common fucking sense.

Reread your post, realize your idiocy, and hang your head in shame. I'll wait.

>> No.4920749

>>4920434

That means you put your dick in OP's mouth...

>> No.4920751

>>4920742
>it's common sense

Not an argument. Post evidence or shut the fuck up.

>> No.4920759

>>4920730
Like taking mushrooms

>> No.4920756

>>4920742
he thinks he is trolling

>> No.4920777

>>4920751
Please be trolling. Please be trolling.

Do you think there exists only one objective reality and everyone possesses the ability to wake up in the morning and see everything the exact same way? Perception is the brain's way of interpreting what the senses pick up. Some people have more acute senses than others. Some have healthier brain activity. Some have chemical imbalances in the brain prevention certain perceptions. Therefore, because of the human condition, perception simply must be subjective.

>> No.4920792

>>4920751
>Post evidence or...
That's kind of the point. In order to obtain evidence or make an observation, those things must first be perceived (subjectivity). Science is then based on the assumption/belief in the mutuality of perception...which is not fact. Ultimately, science is about facts only after making an initial assumption. So science is not scientific. It's all a mind-fuck.

>> No.4920791

>>4920724
>>4920730
Mary's room is great and all until we invented emulators. And then our emulator ran emulators.
"Oh look I'm Java on Linux, on my Windows, virtually on my Mac."
The Mac not only controls everything about the Windows (which controls everything about the Linux, and on down to the JVM), but unlike say, a rootkit, which controls everything about your computer, it can also 'understand' everything about it's subordinate emulation.

Let us use the link on Wikipedia and bring up the reference about an archangel understanding ammonia's structure but not that it produces smell.
Mary's room is now much less interesting when you consider the archangel is able to simulate the process of a brain an olfactory organ and connected brain and the run a physics simulation to that would result in the brain smelling the ammonia, then using a data library to translate the physiological phenomena and "understandings" the brain experiences into a format the archangel can experience.

So no, no Mary's room for you.

>> No.4920796

>>4920582
I call him "robot". By his own logic, he has no awareness of his own retarded posts. Automa Tommy?

>> No.4920809

>>4920777
Ever heard of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat
These experiences are 'subjective' only because we are not able to, at this time, accurately judge what impact the physiological differences you described would have on perception.

>> No.4920808

>>4920777
Still no evidence. Try again, /x/ troll.

>>4920792
0/10
>implying a meter or a kilogram is a matter of subjective interpretation

>> No.4920812

>>4920791
but I'm not arguing that subjective knowledge is intrinsically subjective, I'm not being agnostic about it. I'm betting on science to solve the hard problem of consciousness, but that retard is arguing there is nothing to solve at all.

>> No.4920820

>>4920808
>implying a meter or a kilogram is a matter of subjective interpretation
They both require a frame of reference (subjective) and cannot exist on their own (objective).

>> No.4920822

>>4920674
Color does not equal frequency. Don't confuse a physical phenomenon with the sensory apprehension of it. Different visual systems of different species won't be seeing exactly the same thing. Read about cones.

>> No.4920824

>>4920751
>>4920777
I don't understand. You use your common sense to say everyone sees the same, he is using his common sense to say everyone sees things differently. What's the difference?

When we say it doesn't matter it's because it doesn't matter, not that it is not possible or there. All we have to debate on it is language and you two are putting too much faith onto your language.

It's not scientific to go around claiming "my red is not your red". But it's also not scientific to say "there is only one red". The thing is, whatever red is or isn't, we are able to understand what each other is talking about when we say the word "red". Language is the key and what you guys are missing.

>> No.4920837

>>4920820
Take your retard trolling to /b/.

>>4920822
Color is defined to be the frequency. Learn to into physics.

>>4920824
Science and logic suggest that qualia cannot exist. You can keep your philosophical trolling and your beliefs in fairy tales to /x/.

>> No.4920843

>>4920697
What about species that may see a greater variety of colours than we can imagine, because they have more than three kinds of cones, genious? By your idea, we are colourblind to some superstandard. But there is no superstandard of colour perception. We see what we see as a consquence of our visual anatomy and brain processing.

>> No.4920848

>>4920837
You are wrong. Colour is not at all defined to be frequency. You've only read a grossly simplified take and believed it too strongly.

>> No.4920853

>>4920848

>inb4 sound is more than a frequency, tree falls in the woods and NO ONE HEARS IT because, like, man, sound only exists once it's HEARD, MAN!

Oh boy...

>> No.4920852

>>4920843
We have technology to visualize infrared, ultraviolet etc. Your argument is invalid.

>> No.4920857

>>4920824
>The thing is, whatever red is or isn't, we are able to understand what each other is talking about when we say the word "red"
That's because of the assumed mutuality of the experience. Which works well until you talk to someone with a different experience, like color-blindness (ex, my red is their brown, etc).

It's close but not exact. Language assumes mutuality of definitions, but take for example something like "love". So many different definitions but so many assume that it exists objectively outside of the subjective interpretation of it.

>> No.4920862

>>4920837
>I was talking about language

>brings up qualia
>philosophical trolling
>/x/

wtf am I reading...

You're too full of yourself to be scientist.

>> No.4920866

Congratulations,
>>4920724
>>4920812
You are the first person to reply to any of:
>>4920696
>>4920700
>>4920702
>>4920713
>>4920721
>>4920732
>>4920791
>>4920809

I'm not sure how how you're bringing up Mary's room originally was to argue that way, but you are also not the first to push Mary into this space:
>>4920699


I would recommend:
>>4920696
>>4920700
>>4920702
for those who are still arguing crap like qualia or whatever in this thread.

>> No.4920878

Think of the sense of smell by analogy. The perception of a specific smell is not an inherent quality of a meterial. There is a physical process that translates the chemical properties of particles that meet receptors in the nose to the perception of a smell. But other species perceive the same materials differently -- some with less nuance, some with more nuance, as a wine aficionado who says he detects a variety of notes. To a dog, we are smell-handicapped.

>> No.4920883

>>4920853
You aren't very bright, I'm sorry to notice.

>> No.4920899

>>4920853
No, that story is merely a tool to instruct the importance of defining what you mean and sharing the definition so that people can understand each other instead of arguing past each other. "Sound" as the perception verus "sound" as the pressure waves. Consider frequencies that humans are deaf to. Are they "silent sounds" to you?

>> No.4920904

For those of you still concerned with color existing from perspective or whatever:
>>4920696
>>4920700
>>4920702
For those of you still concerned with the subjectivity of perception and how objective any qualia sort of idea or knowlege can be:
>>4920791
Finally for those of who concerned over whether word their concepts we have conventions for are actually objective in their entirety or subjective at least in their individual perception:
>>4920809

If you are thinking of just ignoring this, but are actually looking for answers or what have you, consider the fact that no one has argued one iota against anything I have said as some form of legitimacy.

>> No.4920914

>>4920866
Actually I used all the instances of mary's room, and as a defense for qualia, and welcomed you. I do not mean qualia as a dualist property, only that we are not philosophical zombies, there is that added but functionally possibly unnecessary aspect of actually experiencing stimuli. The automaton I was arguing with says no such thing exists, and I was agreeing with you because it is infact scientifically provable that subjective experience exists.

>> No.4920944

I wish to give another example where (more obviously) perception of a physical phenomenon is not the same as the source stimulus: perception of loudness versus decibel level. Suffice to say, it is not one-to-one.

>> No.4920964

>>4920914
Oh I see sir. Then we are in agreement. I was mostly concerned the "possibly unnecessary aspect of actually experiencing stimuli," as most probably science will find that it is very unnecessary to "actually experience" 'qualia' in order to observe or determine its objective values and effects.
Again I recommend to everyone still looking at this thread to read:
>>4920904

For:
>>4920944
I recommend you read:
>>4920809
Differences in perception in sound are subjective in only so far as we are not able to, at this time, accurately gauge all the variables involved in your perception of sound.

>> No.4920973

>>4920904

>>4920696
>MOST brains

>>4920702
>So yes, color does exist "objectively, physically, concretely" for people whose brains efficiently recognize colors.
The question is whether or not color exists "objectively, physically, concretely" in it's own right, not for just most people.

>>4920791
>then using a data library to translate the physiological phenomena and "understandings" the brain experiences into a format the archangel can experience.
The contention is whether or not the format the archangel can experience is the same experience as what is considered "smell". Computers/robots can experience/interpret etc the same phenomena as lightwaves and "smell" particles, but that does not denote a similar metaphysical/qualia experience.

>>4920809
A physiological effect causing changes in the subjective experience, to me is not the issue...but rather that the metaphysical experience (color, sound, etc) and physical are separate in their own right, even though one does seem to effect the other and vice versa.

>> No.4920977

>>4920964
Well sure. Our perceptions are a limited sampling and processing of the surround, which is what I am explaining.

>> No.4920981

Of course color exists.
Only retards and trolls would say otherwise.

>> No.4921004

>>4920973
I'm finding two different separations in the thread then:

A) Idea that redness of red is completely independent of perception of it (which I can't fathom how that could be) versus that the redness of red is the perception itself (which makes sense to me).

B) Idea that redness of red rests in the frequency of light itself somehow, maybe even in the material itself that emits such light (only true enough by shared experience and naming what we perceive) versus that the redness of red is itself the perception brought about by the stimulus interacting with the visual system and brain (most accurate -and perhaps too pedantic for many people- understanding).

>> No.4921010

>>4920981
But continue and think because we like to think about such things... where does it exist. Not saying it does not exist, just poking at your brain a bit there.

>> No.4921017

If you believe a color (something thats immaterial) exist, then you must also believe in god/soul/fairies. Its only a logical extension of the same group.

>> No.4921027
File: 240 KB, 288x301, OCdonotsteal.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4921027

>White reflects sunlight
>Black absorbs sunlight
>saying colors don't exit

>> No.4921039
File: 17 KB, 444x299, woman2520laughing.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4921039

>God creates universe
>God destroys universe
>saying God doesn't exist

>> No.4921042

>>4921004
Basically, yeah.

> A) Idea that redness of red is completely independent of perception of it (which I can't fathom how that could be) versus that the redness of red is the perception itself (which makes sense to me).

Imagine all metaphysical/qualia experience existing in its own/independent realm. Our brain processes tap into this realm to give us our experience. There would be a realm of only red. But red in and of itself has no value without context. If there is only red, then there are only shades of red, which by perception would be the same as shades of black and white since there is nothing to compare red to. Then in order for there to be redness of red, there has to also be blue, and green etc. A situation in which red[ness] exists outside our perception of it while simultaneously red[ness] requires our perception of it.

B) Again, it seems to me, that it has to be both.

>> No.4921053

>>4921004
is not me, or in other words, this post:
>>4920904
On to business:
>>4920973
Why thank you.

>The question is whether or not color exists "objectively, physically, concretely" in it's own right, not for just most people.
If it exists objectively "for most people," (or for anyone for that matter) that entails that it is actually objective (in it's own right) and one may deduce that those who are not "most people" are somehow unable by grasp the "objectivity, physicality, and concreteness" of color.

>> No.4921056

>The contention is whether or not the format the archangel can experience is the same experience as what is considered "smell". Computers/robots can experience/interpret etc the same phenomena as light waves and "smell" particles, but that does not denote a similar metaphysical/qualia experience.
The idea I brought up with the archangel is that the concept that the "metaphysical/qualia experience" is being observed in its whole, is being observed in its entirety, by an intellect with access to a meta-intellectual mind of some sort. Basically the archangel is supplanting the requirement of a something being a qualia by understanding the environment of the holding the qualia itself: ineffable, intrinsic, private, directly or immediately apprehensible in consciousness (wikipedia). Those for aspects of a qualia are each overcome by the archangel being able understand the "format" the qualia is transmitted or stored in as an experience.

>A physiological effect causing changes in the subjective experience, to me is not the issue...but rather that the metaphysical experience (color, sound, etc) and physical are separate in their own right, even though one does seem to effect the other and vice versa.
I would ask what interface in the brain separates the physical perception from the metaphysical experience. When does a protein in a cone cell activating to a wavelength of light become separate "in their own right" from color? Does some part of the brain attempt to guess whether or not the cone cell actually detected light? I would submit that their is no interface that separates observation/perception from experience, but instead what we experience is a direct physical result of having perceived it through a physiological process that can be explained in gruesome detail.

>> No.4921063
File: 2.64 MB, 400x225, 1332360627183.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4921063

>>4921039
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5eonFu1Bi4

>And he believes that it could have sprung into existence without any divine help whatsoever.

>> No.4921067

>>4921042
For B i meant the later being the end result. But both are necessary, wavelength plus brain interaction. Yet i can fathom situations in which specific wavelengths resulting in different color experiences (like color blindness).

>> No.4921077

>>4921063
>creation from nothing
>logical
choose 1

>> No.4921085

>>4921053
> those who are not "most people" are somehow unable by grasp the "objectivity, physicality, and concreteness" of color.
Or vice versa.
This assumes that if most people believe it then it's true/objective. Most people believed the heavens rotated around the earth, that the earth is flat, etc...but there were objective truths that refuted the perception of "most people". I think if we rely of what most people believe as objective, then fact is whatever "they" want it to be (definitely a different philosophical discussion).

>> No.4921090

>>4921063
god damn lindsay lohan was hot as fuck in mean girls.

if there is one thing i would wish for is to have get an non-aging lindsay lohan the way she looked in mean girls. i would spend the rest of my life fucking the shit out of her.

>> No.4921100

>>4921056
Second part:
What do you think about the example i gave in >>4921042 ?

>> No.4921102

platonic mathfag here, colors are bullshit, explain magenta.

>> No.4921108

>>4921077
I would love to see you debate this guy

>> No.4921116

>>4921077
Virtual particles, observable by the Casimir effect... logical.

>> No.4921121

ITT: people who need to read some john searle

>> No.4921129

>>4921116
>virtual particles
>from nothing
you dont know anything about physics do you?

>> No.4921127

>>4921102
What about the example in >>4921042 ?

>> No.4921131

>>4921129
They are caused BY something, but OUT of nothing...right?

>> No.4921133

Actually I'll use this name to avoid confusion, these are me:
>>4920964
>>4921053
>>4921056

Guys:
>>4921004
>>4921042
I would recommend you read
>>4920696
>>4920700
>>4920702
Then I will I also add this as a reply:
A runs into:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_ideal
Having an ideal concept of red to draw on, as well orange, magenta, tan, and every possible stinking color along the entire decimal system of nms until the detail of our decimal systems has us at the particle level and we are messing around with colors that deviate by magnitudes comparable to Planck's constants.
B While b is a good deal closer to the majority of the previous discussions, essentially b is to be any explanation of color as physical phenomenon which is most likely the issue /sci/ and op had had a problem. Essentially the main concern with b (explanation of the redness of red as physical stimulus given by convention the name "red") is that although it is a very physical and observable process, the absorption of light by proteins in cone cells triggering a reaction in the nerves bring a stimulus to the brain, we are forced to depend on thinking that when we say "red" others have experienced a similar experience as ours and that they understand the conventions surrounding the word "red" and thus are able share a supposedly common object for the name "red".

>> No.4921135

>>4921133
While this seems to be a problem for B, naming an experience that is, as of now not possible for us to objectively measure in its entirety, this problem is deceptive. Red is no more a difficult convention to give an appropriate subject then happiness, fear, pain, or guitar, all physical phenomena that may be observed through one or another instrument and whose accompanying variations all have proper descriptors in various languages that allows humans to, according to convention, accurately describe a specific instance of 'red.' "This is dark red, this is orange, is India Brown." All of these are descriptors we have created to easily explain in an objective format with varying degrees of accuracy what we have experienced. With what we have had experienced possibly having been inaccurate to previous observations of any 'baseline' red due to physiological differences.

>> No.4921143

>still believing in platonic metaphysics
>2012

>> No.4921146

Thank you for replying earlier:
>>4921085
However I did clarify this a bit in:
>>4921053
But I will take a few minutes to further clarify this:
>If it exists objectively "for most people," (or for anyone for that matter) that entails that it is actually objective (in it's own right) and one may deduce that those who are not "most people" are somehow unable by grasp the "objectivity, physicality, and concreteness" of color.

Look I was saying that if even one person has discovered something be objective, ("anyone for that matter") then it is by definition universally objective. Everyone else has just yet to realize it.

In the aftermath of the first tactical use of a nuke, most of the world new nukes existed, but many until told otherwise would believe no such destructive man made force could possibly exist.

>> No.4921156

>>4921102
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magenta
Magenta is a color, it is not composed, however, of one single wavelength, but instead it can be created by using white light and removing green.
It is a color, just a more complex color. (Sometimes called a extra-spectral color for not existing by itself in the single wavelength light spectrum.)

>> No.4921159

>>4921127
no, platonic mathematics are not like their retarded cousin, platonic philosophy.

>> No.4921161

>>4921156
>colors are bullshit
>numbers are real

>> No.4921163

>>4921131
>>4921129
>>4921108
>>4921063
What is this nonsense

>> No.4921170

>>4921156
the point I was making is that it does not have a 1 to 1 relationship with wavelength. it is a subjective construct.

>> No.4921173

>>4921067

Color blindness, as it relates to this thread?
>>4920702
Color blindness is caused by "physiological differences" (in all normal cases) and is the reason why I find this so important:
>>4920809
We have yet to be able to determine the any sort of method by which to read what effect physiological differences have on human's perception let alone observe the act of perception. But if we observe and understand how a brain works, then yes, one could posit that we could place an electronic filter between a color blind persons retinas and brain or just create non color blind replacement eyes for the subject and have them see full, normal, correct colors.

>> No.4921177

>>4921146
Ah, then i guess that some inital assumptions must be made. That I am not the only one experiencing experience (the rest of you aren't robots just acting like i would act without the requisite "experience"). And an assumption in the mutuality of experience.

Actually a few years back i was aiming to write huge thesis on "everything", and i started with language since i was using language to convey the message. I was bummed because after a train of thought i realized that there was no way for me to use language to convey a message since it requires the reader to have the same definition/understanding of the words as i do and a prior ability to understand the concepts, therefor words themselves have no power to convey a message. That i dont have the power, but that the power already resides or not in the reader. By the end i was at "then maybe my argument should stop here" and i did (totally bummed).

>> No.4921182

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostensive_definition

>> No.4921186
File: 718 KB, 300x169, 1339014199591.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4921186

JIMMIES RUSTLED!!??

>2012
>not having Satan guard your Jimmies

http://www.joyofsatan . org/
http://www.angelfire . com/empire/serpentis666/Outsiders.html BUT I IS AN ATHIEST!?!?!?
http://www.angelfire . com/empire/serpentis666/Tree.html SATAN CREATED HUMANITY THROUGH GENETIC ENGINEERING
http://www.angelfire . com/empire/serpentis666/Incubus.html HAVE SEX WITH DEMONS

Don't miss out on this shit, you'll be mad if you do. ANCIENT ALIENS MOTHER FUCKER.

>> No.4921205

>>4921177
Research computer architecture and how computers are built using simple set of commands like machine language. If you can construct a language consisting of logic operatives like IF AND OR NOT TRUE FALSE, etc and on, then you can if fact you can use words to convey an objective message.
Read this story it talks a book written with the same sort of logic/symbolic language

http://community.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=13-12-10
http://community.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=28-12-10

>> No.4921217

>>4921170
>the point I was making is that it does not have a 1 to 1 relationship with wavelength. it is a subjective construct.
It is only a subjective construct in only so far as the color we see when green is removed from white we then name "Magenta".
It is in fact a very "objective construct." Or at least as much so as any other color, in fact one can say it is as "objective" a color as say, orange is.

>> No.4921235

>>4921205
An aside (and i haven't read the story yet)...eve online is a game that i want to like so badly. But playing it alone is like the epitome of boredom and frustration, at least for me.

>> No.4921437

>>4921217
There is no object in the first place though. Of course we can describe the physical stimuli that give the experience of magenta, but there is no "object" magenta outside of our perception of it. The fact that it does not correspond to a specific wavelenth just makes its lack of independent reality more obvious than a spectral colour.

>> No.4921543

>>4921437
This is a very special thread. And I feel all gentlemanned out.
For everyone else, check the times, I did not revive this, I am merely responding.
If there is no object in the first place, What would you like to call the object/wave, traveling at you, a white light, say from the sun, specifically missing the wavelength 500-530 nanometers, the wavelength band which happens to set off a protein contained in the cone cell's of human eyes.
This same cone cell, when enough of this particular protein that can normally be activated by a 500-530 nm wavelength of light then sends a signal to the brain signifying the detection of the color "green."
We call this particularly special type of light "magenta." A similar effect is achieved by removing red from white light, producing cyan.

They are, in this sense, subjective terms determined by convention for a /sci/entifically important deviance of white light.

>> No.4921548

Weut

>> No.4921562

>>4921548
Hello good sir, welcome to this "color doesn't exist thread." To get started, it is highly recommended to read this to get you going:
>>4920904
It will put you in place to really beat the shit out of color trolls :D

>> No.4921586

how do we know that colour as we know it doesn't exist? we don't, since it's completely unfalsifiable.

educated guesses and opinions are well and good, but don't imply it's the truth.

>> No.4921647

>>4921586
Why my good sir, that is an excellent and abbreviated logical argument combating the trollish cry of "colors don't exist."
>>4920416
However, please at least read more than my and the op's posts before posting.
Have an excellent day.

>> No.4921736

>>4921543
>And I feel all gentlemanned out.
I, for one, have appreciated and enjoyed the patience and intellectual discourse. Thank you.

>> No.4922443

>>4921543
The object isn't "magenta".

>> No.4922449

>>4921647
It's too simplified to say "colours don't exist", as much as it is too simplified to just say that they do exist. There's too much room for false assumptions or inferences if no further explanation is offered with such quick statements. Anyone who reads up on perception as a topic of neurology and sensory anatomy will come to know that it's more complicated than "they exist" or "they don't exist".

>> No.4924220

I'm not done here

>> No.4924224

>>4924220
please... let it die... i'm so sick of looking at this picture.