Color's Intrinsic Nature: Light, Perception & Information

[Royce]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
It depends on the properties of the source of light AND the properties of the system that perceives the light.

Again you beg the question. You are still just assuming that color is inherent to the light itself. What reason do you have to support this claim? (Restating your position does not count as support.)

I cannot at this time provide references; however, I can only restate that both science and technology refer to light of a specific wavelength has or is a specific color. This is used in both color television and in photography as well as the well known red shift of light from distant galaxies due to the expansion of the universe. There are many other such instances where scienc and scientist refer to light as having color. I am no longer insisting that this is the case but I am claiming that color is information carried by light via it's wavelength and correctly perceived by us as color. The source of this information is the intrinsic physical property of the source of the light. The color of the source determines the wavelength of the light that we see and perceive as color, the color of the source.

I claim that color is better described as a property of the brain. Here are two reasons I have to support my claim:

1) Stimulating certain portions of the brain leads to the perception of certain colors, regardless of the presence or absence of light. This clearly presents a case where color perception is dependent on brain function, not properties of light.

No, it merely indicates what we already know that the brain is wire to and capable of perceiving color. Our experiencing color is dependent on brain function but our brains in this case is responding to stimuli which simulates the stimuli from our retina. This is true of all of our senses. If you position were true the color would be an invention and creation of our brains and not information from external objective reality. Yet science is able to experiment with and use color to collect empirical knowledge about the objective reality called the universe.

2) Although this has not been proven yet, we have very good reason to believe that if the brain were wired differently, it would see light of 600nm wavelength as some color other than this one. Again, what we have here is dependence of color on brain structure and function, not on properties of light.

And if our brains were wired differently, dysfunctional or injured it would and on occasion does perceive light as small or taste. This violates Chalmers organizational invariance principles which is why I quoted it. It our brains are not organized the same way then there can be no comparison as it would be comparing apples and oranges.

Insofar as we have reason to believe that perceived color is dependent most fundamentally on brain function and not properties of light, we have reason to believe that if color is inherent to anything here, it is the brain and not light.

Fair enough. So you are conceding that perceived color depends on functional organization of the brain, not a property of light? This is a point against your argument, not for it.

No, I am say just what Chalmers says that so long as we have qualitatively identical functional organization, we perceive the same things when given the same input. This was as I said included to counter you above statement. It supports my position because it is saying that we all perceive color in the same way and that it is common to all sighted people. As a common trait among humans it supports the position that it was evolved to gather information about our environment and not simply to liven up our dreams and hallucinations.

 

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Royce
If you position were true the color would be an invention and creation of our brains

True.

and not information from external objective reality.

False.

Is it information from external reality that gets to us in a direct sense? No. In an indirect sense? Yes.

Color is a creation of our brains, but that still does not preclude it from REPRESENTING information existing in external reality. Color is not literally a property of light, but perceived color as generated by the brain is MODULATED ISOMORPHICALLY in step with information that comes from external reality, and so it creates a reliable representation. You don't seem to be getting this point but I'm running out of ways to say it.

Let's try it this way. You know those 2 dimensional maps that use different colors to represent depth? Well, I'm saying that the way the brain models reality using color works a little bit like that. In both cases what we have are models of reality: one model is a map printed on a sheet of paper, the other model is an individual's subjective experience.

In the case of the map, the colors of a mountain range as they appear on the map are not intrinsic properties of the externally existing mountain in any direct sense; instead, they are arbitrary creations nontheless used very effectively to represent altitude in an indirect way.

Likewise, in the case of the brain, the colors perceived in the visual field are not intrinsic properties of externally existing light waves in any direct sense; instead, they are arbitrary creations nonetheless used very effectively to represent wavelength in an indirect way.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
True.



False.

Is it information from external reality that gets to us in a direct sense? No. In an indirect sense? Yes.

Color is a creation of our brains, but that still does not preclude it from REPRESENTING information existing in external reality. Color is not literally a property of light, but perceived color as generated by the brain is MODULATED ISOMORPHICALLY in step with information that comes from external reality, and so it creates a reliable representation. You don't seem to be getting this point but I'm running out of ways to say it.

I do understand and I not only get your point but concede and agree with it as far as it goes. All that I am saying, in taking you point one step further, is that the information coming from external reality is the effect of the intrinsic property of the color of the source, the ultimate cause whose ultimate effect is, so far as we are concerned, our perception of color. I maintain that we see color because color exists and is important information about our external reality. Call it what you may it is still in essence color and it is an intrinsic part of objective reality that life evolved to use and take advantage of as it has all resources of informational and material importance to it, life itself.

Let's try it this way. You know those 2 dimensional maps that use different colors to represent depth? Well, I'm saying that the way the brain models reality using color works a little bit like that. In both cases what we have are models of reality: one model is a map printed on a sheet of paper, the other model is an individual's subjective experience.

In the case of the map, the colors of a mountain range as they appear on the map are not intrinsic properties of the externally existing mountain in any direct sense; instead, they are arbitrary creations nonetheless used very effectively to represent altitude in an indirect way.

Likewise, in the case of the brain, the colors perceived in the visual field are not intrinsic properties of externally existing light waves in any direct sense; instead, they are arbitrary creations nonetheless used very effectively to represent wavelength in an indirect way.

Agreed but the fact remains that while we do use the colors to represent height it is an actual real part of the map because we put it there on the map. It may represent something else to us but it is still real and it is still color. This is only an indication of how useful color is to us and our understanding. It is so much a part or our life and environment we use it to indicate and represent so many other things such as red for stop and/or danger, white for purity etc. Our brains did not make this up but simply makes use of it.
The reason you feel that I don't get it and the reason I feel that you don't get it is that we are working and discussing from two separate paradigms or philosophical positions that are not reconcilable. We will never agree so long as we hold such diametrically opposed positions.

I thank you for participating and putting up such a good argument and making me think and come up with counter arguments. I have enjoyed and appreciate it but I have nothing new or more to say other than good job and thank you again.

 

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Royce
Agreed but the fact remains that while we do use the colors to represent height it is an actual real part of the map because we put it there on the map.

Just like colors are an actual real part of our conscious experience. I never argued that colors are not real. The point of my analogy was to note that in the case of the map, the colors belong to the map and not to the mountain itself. Likewise, colors in our conscious experience belong to our conscious experience and not to light waves themselves.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
Just like colors are an actual real part of our conscious experience. I never argued that colors are not real. The point of my analogy was to note that in the case of the map, the colors belong to the map and not to the mountain itself. Likewise, colors in our conscious experience belong to our conscious experience and not to light waves themselves.

...

(I'm letting you get in the last word. I have nothing more or new to say. Thanks.)