|
|
|
|
Johnny Monoxide
New Member
1 Post |
 Posted - 07/18/2013 : 01:50:02
|
What skeptical or scientifc resources do we have that can help us deal with the problems of colour? There are at least 5 problems that look inaccesible to materialist science. Here they are:
1. The validation of colour. Can a machine tell us what colour something is? Can such a machine's assessment of "red" be more accurate than a visual assessment?
2. The placement of colour. If colour is in the brain, where is it? If it is in the occiptal lobe is it really "in" it, like objects inside a bag?
3. The reality of colour. If colour is real then does the brain get heavier when we perceive colour?
4. The spatial inconsistency of colour. I can see two colours in the same place when I wear glasses with different coloured lenses. So why can't actual objects have two colours? Does this show that the visual world is different to the world of science but no less real?
5. The ontological inconsistency of colour. If colour is electromagnetic radiation or photons then why are some invisible and some not? is invisibilty a real property that science can develop?
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2013 : 02:44:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Johnny Monoxide
What skeptical or scientifc resources do we have that can help us deal with the problems of colour? There are at least 5 problems that look inaccesible to materialist science. |
There isn't a problem with colour the way you seem to think. Not in a strictly scientific sense.
1. The validation of colour. Can a machine tell us what colour something is? Can such a machine's assessment of "red" be more accurate than a visual assessment? |
The light spectrum just "is". There is no "red" to the machine as such. "Red" is in the Eye of the Beholder. It's in humans perception and language. We only tell the machine to recognise an arbitrary span of light wavelengths (800nm to 635nm) and define this spectrum as "red" when in fact it consists of "Deep red", "red", "Ferrari-red", and "red-close to orange".
The machine will tell us the colour depending on what colour we want the machine to tell us. This is not a scientific problem, but a human perception problem. You may Think a certain wavelength is "red" while I say it's "orange".
2. The placement of colour. If colour is in the brain, where is it? If it is in the occiptal lobe is it really "in" it, like objects inside a bag? |
The Place is on the object obviously. As long as the colour is in the paint bucket, it's in a bucket. When you paint it on a wall, you place it there.
It's usually not healthy to sniff paint, which is one of the ways it can get into the occiptal lobe. Once there the cat is out of the bag.
3. The reality of colour. If colour is real then does the brain get heavier when we perceive colour? |
That's a really good question. The brain consumes a lot of energy processing the perception of colour, however, that energy is primarily expended by ordering the structure of the neurons, not necessarily make more of them. I suppose new pathways have to form, and as long as it isn't done at the expense of other pathways, then yes: the brain will get heavier.
4. The spatial inconsistency of colour. I can see two colours in the same place when I wear glasses with different coloured lenses. So why can't actual objects have two colours? Does this show that the visual world is different to the world of science but no less real? |
There is only one world: the real one. What you see without your glasses is your perception of the world as your eyes see them and how your brain interpret what your eyes see. By using glasses with two differently coloured glasses, you are filtering the light which your eyes see, and thus what you see through the glasses is a distorted view of reality.
5. The ontological inconsistency of colour. If colour is electromagnetic radiation or photons then why are some invisible and some not? is invisibilty a real property that science can develop? |
There is no inconsistency. Some (actually, most) photons are invisible to you because the human eye is not capable of detecting photons outside the visible spectrum.
It's like an FM car radio. The radio can only receive 88-108MHz because the antenna and the receiver circuit isn't designed to receive more channels than this, because it's unnessessary or unwanted (or very hard to accomplish).
Below 88MHz are some TV-channels which will mostly sound like static, and below that, and the physical size of capacitors and coils in the circuits become too large and bulky to fit. This is a hardware problem, thus an engineering problem, not a scientific one.
Above 108MHz there's aviation and marine Communication which is uninteresting for the average car owner. Above that, some of the transistors in the Car Radio doesn't work because they can't oscillate fast enough. Again, this is not a science problem but a hardware ie engineering problem.
This analogy applies to the eye as well: The properties of the individual components of the eye is limiting the spectrum that it can detect.
True invisibility cannot be achieved (quantum mechanic properties of matter precludes that). But there are ways to fool the human eye, and electronic equipment. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2013 : 04:40:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
| 3. The reality of colour. If colour is real then does the brain get heavier when we perceive colour? |
That's a really good question. The brain consumes a lot of energy processing the perception of colour, however, that energy is primarily expended by ordering the structure of the neurons, not necessarily make more of them. I suppose new pathways have to form, and as long as it isn't done at the expense of other pathways, then yes: the brain will get heavier. |
Don't forget Special Relativity. If the brain has more energy flowing around in it due to color perception, then it'll get heavier because E=mc2.  |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2013 : 07:28:49 [Permalink]
|
 As funny as that is, it does raise the question of how it might be tested.
We might be able to test that concept. Batteries are chemical based electrical storage devices. The electrical potential being greater in a charged vs discharged battery, one should be able to measure the difference in weight between the two. |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2013 : 07:55:39 [Permalink]
|
| A fully charged ideal battery (one with no internal resistance) with a voltage of 1.5 V and storing 1 coulomb of charge would indeed be about 0.017 picograms heavier than when completely drained. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2013 : 14:44:32 [Permalink]
|
| Although I didn't say so before I was thinking of a bigger battery. |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2013 : 15:09:20 [Permalink]
|
| The machine will tell us the colour depending on what colour we want the machine to tell us. This is not a scientific problem, but a human perception problem. You may Think a certain wavelength is "red" while I say it's "orange". |
See: daltonism. One person's perception of 'red' does not necessarily equal another's.
When in doubt, trust Pantone ;) |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
tw101356
Skeptic Friend
USA
333 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2013 : 21:14:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Siberia
| The machine will tell us the colour depending on what colour we want the machine to tell us. This is not a scientific problem, but a human perception problem. You may Think a certain wavelength is "red" while I say it's "orange". |
See: daltonism. One person's perception of 'red' does not necessarily equal another's.
When in doubt, trust Pantone ;)
|
Heh. To me, ham is Williamsburg Blue and Halloween Pumpkins are the same color as a lush plot of grass. The latter caused much amusement at a friend's Halloween party when I tripped over a small pumpkin in his front yard.
Color perception is a funny thing. The brain blends multiple colors into one. An object may indeed be two distinct colors like fabric woven from two different colors of thread, but at sufficient distance you combine them into a single color.
Many people don't even see colors in the same way with each eye. Find a pattern with medium areas of many different colors and look at it while alternating blinking each eye shut. See if an area "flashes" between each eye viewing it. (Color blindness - daltonism - test charts are the best for this experiment.)
|
- TW
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2013 : 21:25:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sailingsoul
Although I didn't say so before I was thinking of a bigger battery. |
The energy-to-mass conversion scales linearly. One joule equals 0.017 picograms. Ten joules would be 0.17 picograms. One megajoule would be 17 nanograms. Etc. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2013 : 14:40:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by tw101356
Originally posted by Siberia
| The machine will tell us the colour depending on what colour we want the machine to tell us. This is not a scientific problem, but a human perception problem. You may Think a certain wavelength is "red" while I say it's "orange". |
See: daltonism. One person's perception of 'red' does not necessarily equal another's.
When in doubt, trust Pantone ;)
|
Heh. To me, ham is Williamsburg Blue and Halloween Pumpkins are the same color as a lush plot of grass. The latter caused much amusement at a friend's Halloween party when I tripped over a small pumpkin in his front yard.
Color perception is a funny thing. The brain blends multiple colors into one. An object may indeed be two distinct colors like fabric woven from two different colors of thread, but at sufficient distance you combine them into a single color.
Many people don't even see colors in the same way with each eye. Find a pattern with medium areas of many different colors and look at it while alternating blinking each eye shut. See if an area "flashes" between each eye viewing it. (Color blindness - daltonism - test charts are the best for this experiment.)
|
A friend's father had that. It was amusing when he drew a rose that to us was blue with a brown stem rather than the usual red and green. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
 |
|
The COLOUR problem
