There are no material objects

[yy2bggggs]

So I know what you're saying that it's not really brain failing because the brain's doing everything correctly enough but then what do you want to call it, brain deception?

How about using the established term? Just call them optical illusions. Why would you want to call them brain failures if you know they are not a failure of the brain in any meaningful sense?

Hang on a sec I need to get something cleared up because I think I'm saying what you're saying (not about the Graphemes though). Photoreceptors send stilumi to the brain, they get summated, and you "see" color. I think we agree on that simplified version.

So let's go to color grapheme synesthesia then. Do we or do we not see graphemes? If we do, then if a person perceives color associated with a particular grapheme, then in what sense is her brain "failing"? Please note:

• The color percept is triggered by a grapheme
• A particular grapheme always correlates with a particular color
• The grapheme is really there

Given these three things, the color percept corresponds to the visual perception of something that is really there. If that's not seeing, what is?

I call them brain failures, you say that's naive, but I mean, nuts to you y2.

When I say it's naive, I'm not slinging insults at you. I'm referring to naive realism^WP--the notion that we perceive things "directly", "as they really are". You are assuming a view of naive realism in your discussion--this grapheme is somehow "supposed to be green", and if we "see it correctly", we'll "see it to be green".

I don't think this analysis is useful. Light is light, and light is simply photons at various wavelengths. Colors are colors, and they are perceptual qualities. The one has nothing to do with the other, except insofar as spectra in particular environmental situations using "ordinary" scenery convey information about something immutable, and therefore useful, about an object. Given a reference brain and sensory apparatus, we can conventionally talk about the meaning of colors, but only because that gives us a context. A brain or sensory apparatus that works differently can only be faulted as working differently. Or not efficiently. Or could be lauded because it's more efficient at certain useful tasks.

You have to have some actual criteria, you see, other than the naive notion that green is "how an apple really is" and the "proper way to see it" would be to see it as green.

And yes I do think color exists independent of the brain only because it is reduced to spectroscopy, but maybe that is my naivete showing; I give more credit to the understanding of electromagnetic color before what our brains see.

If you prefer spectroscopy, then fine. However ...

So I don't really consider the subjectivity of color because it's useless when you have a really really really good definition for color (460nm = blue).

...why insist on using terms such as "blue"? What are you going to call 461nm if 460nm is blue? How are you going to define brown? What is white? You're much better off dropping all color terms and sticking to charts if you want to do spectroscopy. You're welcome to call what you're doing color analysis, but don't confuse what you're doing with what we're doing when we call something yellow.

 

[Lowpro]

...why insist on using terms such as "blue"? What are you going to call 461nm if 460nm is blue? How are you going to define brown? What is white? You're much better off dropping all color terms and sticking to charts if you want to do spectroscopy. You're welcome to call what you're doing color analysis, but don't confuse what you're doing with what we're doing when we call something yellow.

Fine all the way up until here. The answer is simple, because the names for color are descriptive enough until I need to use the spectroscopy version (for things such as biology or chemistry)

 

[yy2bggggs]

Fine all the way up until here. The answer is simple, because the names for color are descriptive enough until I need to use the spectroscopy version (for things such as biology or chemistry)

I'm confused. You would want to do spectroscopy, but not use a spectroscopic description?

 

[Dancing David]

See, Jonesboy, dyslexia is real.

[/off topic]

Nope, I wasn't using Chrome, arrrgh

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

When I say it's naive, I'm not slinging insults at you. I'm referring to naive realism^WP--the notion that we perceive things "directly", "as they really are".

Interesting link thanks, I guess is fairly new in WP. I have been stressing this very point for years now here in the JREF, that many of the self called "skeptics" are, in reality, naive materialists, and therefore, (almost) as gullible as the "woos" they fight so enthusiastically.

 

[Lowpro]

I'm confused. You would want to do spectroscopy, but not use a spectroscopic description?

Sort of how I call a cup a cup even if it's a tumbler glass...

 

[Lowpro]

Interesting link thanks, I guess is fairly new in WP. I have been stressing this very point for years now here in the JREF, that many of the self called "skeptics" are, in reality, naive materialists, and therefore, (almost) as gullible as the "woos" they fight so enthusiastically.

I think your failure is (whether intentional or not) conflating the perceptions as real with reality. Perceptions are real because something's going "wrong" with the machine doing the perceiving (eye, brain, etc) now me and y2 got into a tiff about the word brain failure vs the more accurate description (brain's not failing, it's just doing its job and its job actually isn't to properly reflect reality, it's just to give you "enough correctness" though I want to choose my words carefully for that description)

eh edit:

Basically I think bodhi that you come off as conflating real perceptions as if they represent reality. It's like saying that perceptions are real and reality manifests from them, though I'm sure that's not what you mean because that would be ridiculous.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

When you are saying "real" do you mean the observations are real, or just that the perceptions are real?

Err... you were fighting a strawman with your previous comments (even when this second version that you edited). I have stated, clearly IMO, that anything we perceive is real, in the sense that the same mechanisms that give us the "normal" perceptions, give us any perception, and that they are just different ways of dealing with what is called reality.

Thing is, my view is deeper than that, so it is difficult to express in a few sentences. But one thing is for sure, attempting to divide between "observations" and "perceptions" is a problem.

Dualism is implicit in the whole construction, we have "experiences" about "reality"... mmm... nope.. we have experiences and theorize a reality behind them (to explain them), some of our theories become models, and some models deal better with experiences... thats about it.

 

[Lowpro]

Err... you were fighting a strawman with your previous comments (even when this second version that you edited). I have stated, clearly IMO, that anything we perceive is real, in the sense that the same mechanisms that give us the "normal" perceptions, give us any perception, and that they are just different ways of dealing with what is called reality.

Thing is, my view is deeper than that, so it is difficult to express in a few sentences. But one thing is for sure, attempting to divide between "observations" and "perceptions" is a problem.

Dualism is implicit in the whole construction, we have "experiences" about "reality"... mmm... nope.. we have experiences and theorize a reality behind them (to explain them), some of our theories become models, and some models deal better with experiences... thats about it.

I was fighting a strawman because you can't explain your position so I had to take a stab at what you meant, but at least I understand why that's the case now.

Experiences about reality...well we have chemistry backing up our experiences (read up on opsins) so perceptions of reality I think blur enough to where I find it difficult to take a serious division of "experience" and "reality". Maybe I agree with you, but only due to chemistry.

I do have to pick at this part though:

that anything we perceive is real, in the sense that the same mechanisms that give us the "normal" perceptions, give us any perception, and that they are just different ways of dealing with what is called reality.

Now, I can't figure out why you think this. I think one guy mentioned how acid alters his perception, but this doesn't alter reality. I know we again are forming this distinction between the two, but at least we know that our brains operate chemically and all drugs (in this case, LSD) can, to put it mildy, dick with our chemistry and this in turn causes our brains which summate stimuli to give us false data. I call it false data because "true" data would be visual perception that is consistent with what should be perceived. If plates began to melt, form across your shoes, and turn your shoes to glass, you can say you perceived this, but you cannot say this is reality. Now, I can prove this isn't reality with physical laws.

Now, how is such an LSD trip a way of dealing with what is called reality? Reality is VERY consistent; the brain? Not so much, especially on drugs. I would be more inclined to remove the brain and perception entirely from reality, and reality would be JUST as consistent. Physics will still behave exactly.

This is simple, but for some reason I cannot find this reasoning in your post(s)

 

[yy2bggggs]

Sort of how I call a cup a cup even if it's a tumbler glass...

Still confused. I do not know what this analogy means in regard to the question I asked.

 

[Lowpro]

Still confused. I do not know what this analogy means in regard to the question I asked.

Meaning that if I were inclined I'd refer to whatever color I'm referring to by its spectroscopic wavelength. But then, I could just call it "blue".

Sort of like finding blue on a color wheel... It's like asking me to find a cup among a bunch of different types of cups. Well that's what I tried to build that analogy towards (Tumblers, Collins glasses, etc).

Curious because I find it interesting. An apple reflects green light. This is due to chemistry (pigments absorbing and reflecting wavelengths)

Now, your eyes can pick this stimulus up by the chemistry of your opsins, which correspond to the wavelength of light of the apple, in this case I think we're still on green (~500nm).

Now, the brain has to summate the stimuli and give you the perception of what you're seeing, with all hope that the perception is accurate to the light actually being reflected from the apple.

Now, that's why grapheme synesthesia is interesting only because what they're writing with a graphite pencil SHOULD be black, or at least dark. Graphite doesn't reflect orange, or yellow wavelengths. However synesthetics "see" these colors and the colors even change as the symbol changes (curves or lines change the perceived color). But they aren't actually seeing it visually, they're seeing it within their brain, somehow messed up within the pathway for vision but definitely not from the medium (the graphite)

That's what I've been trying to get across anyways.

 

[yy2bggggs]

Meaning that if I were inclined I'd refer to whatever color I'm referring to by its spectroscopic wavelength. But then, I could just call it "blue".

Sort of like finding blue on a color wheel... It's like asking me to find a cup among a bunch of different types of cups. Well that's what I tried to build that analogy towards (Tumblers, Collins glasses, etc).

Curious because I find it interesting. An apple reflects green light. This is due to chemistry (pigments absorbing and reflecting wavelengths)

Now, your eyes can pick this stimulus up by the chemistry of your opsins, which correspond to the wavelength of light of the apple, in this case I think we're still on green (~500nm).

Hmmm... interesting. You talk about "the spectroscopic wavelength" in the singular, as if you think somehow each object reflects a single wavelength of light. You don't seem to take into account that light doesn't ever mix--a photon at a given frequency is always at that frequency as long as it's a photon (notwithstanding irrelevant details such as change of reference frame of the observer). But those photons are all over the place in normal lighting conditions, including the light that eminates from the apple; and they exist at all frequencies across the visible spectrum (and then some!).

Furthermore, if you're talking singular frequencies of light, then you need to discard the color wheel. There are colors on the color wheel that do not correlate to pure light frequencies of any wavelength. Surprisingly enough, the reverse is also true; there are wavelengths of light whose colors you won't find on the color wheel.

Now, the brain has to summate the stimuli and give you the perception of what you're seeing, with all hope that the perception is accurate to the light actually being reflected from the apple.

There's no criteria for accurate in this sense. Again your naive realism is showing through. The particular percept associated with the color of a particular object has no meaning whatsoever in isolation. What matters is how that percept compares to other things; the apple is the same color as this crayon, the same as color as these other apples; a different color than the red apple; the same color as this unripe banana; a different color than the ripe banana, and so on.

Let's suppose I have a strange sort of double-synesthesia. I am a sound-color synesthete, in the sense that I perceive different colors as sounds. This is obviously wrong; I'm supposed to simply see colors, but as it turns out, I hear colors. Something wrong has gone on in my brain. But it doesn't stop there. In my form of double-synesthesia, I am also a color-sound synesthete, in the sense that I perceive sounds as colors. When someone plays a C on the piano, I perceive it as a certain color. As if it's not bad enough, in addition to my double-synesthesia problem, I am neurally deaf, in that I do not hear sounds; and I am also neurally blind, in that I do not see colors.

So there my brain is, all messed up, mixed up, doubly unlucky piled on top of more levels of unluck. However, I have no idea that I have this condition--because every time someone shows me a green apple, or a green crayon, or a monochromatic 500nm laser, I always perceive the same tone. And because everyone else swears that this kind of sensation of objects through the eyes is called "visual", for all I know, my percept that is supposed to be hearing middle C is actually called seeing green. And for all I know, my percept that is supposed to be seeing green is actually called hearing middle C.

Not only do I not know I have this condition, but you don't know I have this condition, because I correctly identify apples as the same color as the crayons they are supposed to be the same color as; and as the monochromatic lasers they are supposed to be the same color as. I correctly identify them as a different color than the apples they're supposed to be a different color from.

And not only do you don't know I have this condition, and not only do I not know that I have it, but you don't know that you don't have this condition. If you cannot figure out that I have this condition, for all you know, your brain is the one that is "messed up"--you are a quadruply unlucky neurally deaf, neurally blind, color-sound sound-color synesthete (and maybe the only case on the planet besides me; good luck with your treatment!)

I don't have this problem, because I'm under no illusion that a particular percept is "supposed" to be how a particular signal is perceived. To me, it doesn't matter what the percept is--so long as the recognition of the same percept corresponds to the recognition of the same correlated conditions.

 

[punshhh]

I don't needs drugs to do that, I was seeking relief from depression.

Yes I have a friend who used to take it occasionally for manic depression, he found it beneficial.

My point is it can be used as a tool in contemplation, enabling a far deeper insight into our circumstances.

 

[Lowpro]

Hmmm... interesting. You talk about "the spectroscopic wavelength" in the singular, as if you think somehow each object reflects a single wavelength of light. You don't seem to take into account that light doesn't ever mix--a photon at a given frequency is always at that frequency as long as it's a photon (notwithstanding irrelevant details such as change of reference frame of the observer). But those photons are all over the place in normal lighting conditions, including the light that eminates from the apple; and they exist at all frequencies across the visible spectrum (and then some!).

Yup, but I'm not talking directly about all the photons I'm talking about the light reflected from the apple, a particular photons of a particular wavelength being reflected off the apple and hitting our photoreceptors. I don't understand how that is being understood the way you're thinking it is, that I refer to spectroscopic wavelength in the singular. And while light doesn't mix, our brains can mix it (extra-spectral as wikipedia calls them; I have no points in this, it's just interesting)

Furthermore, if you're talking singular frequencies of light, then you need to discard the color wheel. There are colors on the color wheel that do not correlate to pure light frequencies of any wavelength. Surprisingly enough, the reverse is also true; there are wavelengths of light whose colors you won't find on the color wheel.
There's no criteria for accurate in this sense. Again your naive realism is showing through. The particular percept associated with the color of a particular object has no meaning whatsoever in isolation. What matters is how that percept compares to other things; the apple is the same color as this crayon, the same as color as these other apples; a different color than the red apple; the same color as this unripe banana; a different color than the ripe banana, and so on.

I brought up the color wheel mostly because you proposed (or rather implied) that there is a dilemma to the color "blue" versus 460nm and 461nm and I am just saying you have the same problem with a color wheel too. That's all. As for naive realism, I really think you're trying to label me that and I just think you're wrong =\ if naive realism were summed up as "needing reference brains for meaning" then the wikipedia page for it is wrong.

Let's suppose I have a strange sort of double-synesthesia. I am a sound-color synesthete, in the sense that I perceive different colors as sounds. This is obviously wrong; I'm supposed to simply see colors, but as it turns out, I hear colors. Something wrong has gone on in my brain. But it doesn't stop there. In my form of double-synesthesia, I am also a color-sound synesthete, in the sense that I perceive sounds as colors. When someone plays a C on the piano, I perceive it as a certain color. As if it's not bad enough, in addition to my double-synesthesia problem, I am neurally deaf, in that I do not hear sounds; and I am also neurally blind, in that I do not see colors.

So there my brain is, all messed up, mixed up, doubly unlucky piled on top of more levels of unluck. However, I have no idea that I have this condition--because every time someone shows me a green apple, or a green crayon, or a monochromatic 500nm laser, I always perceive the same tone. And because everyone else swears that this kind of sensation of objects through the eyes is called "visual", for all I know, my percept that is supposed to be hearing middle C is actually called seeing green. And for all I know, my percept that is supposed to be seeing green is actually called hearing middle C.

Not only do I not know I have this condition, but you don't know I have this condition, because I correctly identify apples as the same color as the crayons they are supposed to be the same color as; and as the monochromatic lasers they are supposed to be the same color as. I correctly identify them as a different color than the apples they're supposed to be a different color from.

And not only do you don't know I have this condition, and not only do I not know that I have it, but you don't know that you don't have this condition. If you cannot figure out that I have this condition, for all you know, your brain is the one that is "messed up"--you are a quadruply unlucky neurally deaf, neurally blind, color-sound sound-color synesthete (and maybe the only case on the planet besides me; good luck with your treatment!)

I don't have this problem, because I'm under no illusion that a particular percept is "supposed" to be how a particular signal is perceived. To me, it doesn't matter what the percept is--so long as the recognition of the same percept corresponds to the recognition of the same correlated conditions.

Cute exercise, but all you're saying is that your perception is consistently correct for all the wrong reasons mechanistically. Alright, I don't know how else I can try to explain this because I agree with most of what you say, you don't seem to address it. Okay we'll have a million dollar contest. Photons are reflected off an object at 510nm. If I'm up there, I'd call it green. Do 490nm and it'd be more blue. I'd win a million dollars.

if someone else went up there, received the same stimulus of 510nm and 490nm and called them red, which is NOT the wavelength of light consistent with green or blue, then they'd NOT win a million dollars. If I did this same contest for a graphite grapheme and asked a synesthetic to tell me its color ( its reflected light should be black) and they say orange, they'd NOT win a million dollars.(extremely simplified assertion of how synesthetics perceive, your description is what I should do, but it's not altogether concise for this explanation)

Now I understand that you'd call this naive realism, but I doubt that's really what naive realism is because I understand that the brain generates a perception, which may be accurate to reality, and probably should be only because the chemistry of opsins and the chemistry of the pigments IS consistent. There is nothing mechanistically that should change color all the way up until you hit the brain.

If the brain fails to accurately form up the perception is SHOULD, consistent to the proper stimuli, then I would call this simply a brain failure (though it doesn't accurately describe the condition, I just think it sounds funny)

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I was fighting a strawman because you can't explain your position so I had to take a stab at what you meant, but at least I understand why that's the case now.

Oh I do explain it, but it is difficult to grasp, sorry about that, and this is because it is a more encompassing way to deal with available data. In fact, if you re read my last post, in the last paragraph I summarize my view, but apparently it didn't catch your attention.

I agree with yy2 in that your view (which is the standard view nothing to be ashamed) it is called naive realism. In the past, I have criticized some forum members for being "naive materialists", and the linked article in Wikipedia explains the position fairly well. Oh and btw, you can argue, some of them are unable to do it, they have to resort to all kind of rather funny insults and using words like "tripe" to attempt to stablish (according to them of course) that their position is 100% correct and anything else is, "tripe".

 

[Dancing David]

Yes I have a friend who used to take it occasionally for manic depression, he found it beneficial.

My point is it can be used as a tool in contemplation, enabling a far deeper insight into our circumstances.

Maybe, maybe not

 

[Lowpro]

Oh I do explain it, but it is difficult to grasp, sorry about that, and this is because it is a more encompassing way to deal with available data. In fact, if you re read my last post, in the last paragraph I summarize my view, but apparently it didn't catch your attention.

I agree with yy2 in that your view (which is the standard view nothing to be ashamed) it is called naive realism. In the past, I have criticized some forum members for being "naive materialists", and the linked article in Wikipedia explains the position fairly well. Oh and btw, you can argue, some of them are unable to do it, they have to resort to all kind of rather funny insults and using words like "tripe" to attempt to stablish (according to them of course) that their position is 100% correct and anything else is, "tripe".

heh you can drop the attitude guy. Now, I really can't find that summarizing of your view unless it's this:

Dualism is implicit in the whole construction, we have "experiences" about "reality"... mmm... nope.. we have experiences and theorize a reality behind them (to explain them), some of our theories become models, and some models deal better with experiences... thats about it.

Now, if you think experiences precede reality, I doubt that. As far as reality is concerned, chemical interactions between light and proteins occur and are demonstrable and measurable, and they are the direct cause of stimuli for our vision (yes, they're the direct cause, there are problems that can occur along the way as it's transduced). Now, the brain does summation, AND the brain can even be WRONG about the stimuli. But at least we can tell WHEN it's correct or incorrect because we actually can measure and demonstrate the corresponding physical mechanisms for them. Similar experiences occur through different stimuli (light versus drugs which give you the feeling of visible light) but some stimuli may be real, the other may be "in your head" now, which one is real, or rather can we index the stimuli to show which ones occur from reality as we call it (in this case I've been referring to external light hitting photoreceptors) versus which is real chemical interactions in your brain giving you perceptions that AREN'T part of the same external reality? Is this distinction proper to you Bodhi? Care to actually comment on my content besides throw out a link and stroke yourself? (Feel free to add that to the list of funny insults thrown at you, but you've earned it I'm sure you agree)

I don't care if you want to call it naive realism or whatever. I think what you don't like about naive realism is this:

We perceive them as they really are.

But that's a guess, because again Bodhi you are so devoid of offering thought or content that I can't even tell if you know what naive realism is. All I can tell is that you can link the page, but you don't seem to address its content, which is part of your failure in communicating your point.

I don't advocate that our perceptions are what really is reality, but at the very least we're just a probe of reality, from receptor to brain, all based on chemistry. Which is why I don't get HOW you guys completely skip the problem that our brain is just summating stimuli which occurs FROM real world stimuli (brain summates stimuli from chemical reactions of opsins, which occurs from an external source from your brain). It can even summate stimuli NOT from the real world, drugs or brain damage give you a false perception (and here's where me and yy2 butt heads) it's false IF you want to claim that the perception represents the same visual stimuli you get from reality, which I'm saying you don't have. Graphemes may give different color perceptions to a synesthetic, but if it's drawn in graphite, then it reflects dark charcoal colors, not green/orange, ESPECIALLY if the color changes occur due to shapes of grapheme. If you are seeing colors like than, then you have a false perception of what you're seeing. I don't think this is arbitrary either.

So what, I guess I'm saying that our brains DO transduce reality? I dunno, I'm starting to think the ability to communicate this has been problematic.

 

[Jonesboy]

Not really, you can pretend that they are, but there is no way to tell the difference. For us, we could all be godthought, butterfly dreams, dancing energy and BIVs. The end result is teh same no matter what.

You can suppose that there are differences, but there would be no way to tell.

So how could you tell, this is an idea that many have rejected but those who ponder will understand.

Thanks to HammeGK for this understanding.

You can argue but there is no way to tell the two apart, yet it could be that the Great Mind manifests as 'material objects', idealists often speculate that there would be a difference. Many materialists disagree until they ponder it.

But this is just speculation...

I do know the difference. Material objects can be hidden, and other objects, like colours and sounds, cannot be hidden, they only vanish and appear.

 

[Jonesboy]

You didn't answer my question.

And no, nothing you post has anything to do with science, nor does it demonstrate even a basic understanding of either the scientific method or contemporary scientific work.

Nor is this "skepticism" on your part.

Skepticism means basing your conclusions on evidence.

What you're doing is certainly not being skeptical of science.

Rather, it is attempting to posit non-scientific ideas as alternatives to science.

And yes, it all reeks of New Age.

How does a skeptic find evidence for colour?

 

[Jonesboy]

Are you saying that trees are sentient?



Yes, you can - and do! Boy, do you - talk about it, but apparently you can't do so coherently or with any idea of communicating to someone else.

woof