/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.8139026]

Why is everyone walking around not being bothered by the fact that we don't even know how colors are possible.

[Anonymous No.8139035]

>>8139026
because colors don't exist.

[Anonymous No.8139042]

>>8139026
Why should we care?
They pose no particular significance.

[Anonymous No.8139043]

>>8139026
we defined what colours are, that's how they're possible

[Anonymous No.8139050]

Why is everyone walking around not being bothered by the fact that op is a faggot.

[Anonymous No.8139058]

>>8139026
>we don't even know how colors are possible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorimetry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_vision

[Anonymous No.8139063]

>>8139058
I think he's referring to the fact that colors aren't an inherent property of light or something.

they're just qualia. essentially emotions induced in the brain in response to specific stimuli.

[Anonymous No.8139226]

>>8139063
Yeah, and? Those "emotions" exist. Wow

[Anonymous No.8139232]

>>8139063
In which case its no weirder than literally anything else thats related to consciousness

[Anonymous No.8139240]

>>8139063
Aren't colors just interpreted wavelengths of light?
So they don't """"""exist"""""" but they are real.

[Anonymous No.8139241]

>>8139226
>Those "emotions" exist.
not really.
>>8139232
truth

[Anonymous No.8139243]

>>8139241
>not really.
How so?

[Anonymous No.8139245]

>>8139243
they're emergent properties of a system, and any changes to the system change the properties.

they have no independent existence, they are not objects. As phenomena go they're transient, and probably not at all what people think they are.

so they exist exactly like unicorns and angels do.

[Anonymous No.8139251]

>>8139245
So your point is... They exist?

[Anonymous No.8139255]

>>8139251
only if you define "exist" as "things which don't exist."

[Anonymous No.8139273]

>>8139026
Because science is reductionist, and act like philosophy on the subject doesn't matter.

Goethe is correct about color, if you speak about how we experience color, and don't just view "le universe is nothing but numbers :-)"

[Anonymous No.8139278]

>>8139273
>act like philosophy on the subject doesn't matter.
it's not that it doesn't matter, it just has no real explanatory power and acts as the new god-free religion.

which is perfectly fine, but it's not going to take you anywhere new.

[Anonymous No.8139284]

>>8139278
>it just has no real explanatory power
wrong

>acts as the new god-free religion.
double wrong

>it's not going to take you anywhere new.
triple wrong

[Anonymous No.8139286]

>>8139284
I see you have great faith in philosophy, but perhaps you could tell me how you test it?

[Anonymous No.8139295]

>>8139286
>only experimentally verifiable things are important
this is just stupid

as for color, goethe's conception of color is testable, we just have no scientific explanation for why it occurs, so people tend to dismiss it as unimportant and irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.8139297]

>>8139295
>only experimentally verifiable things are /sci/
>>>/lit/ is that way

[Anonymous No.8139300]

>>8139295
>>only experimentally verifiable things are important
>this is just stupid
You're not doing a good job at explaining why it isn't complete garbage. Maybe because it is.

[Anonymous No.8139301]

>>8139297
>thread is about color
>talk about the lack of scientific ability to explain
>tells me to leave because thread is about science

kek

[Anonymous No.8139303]

>>8139300
I'm not going to sit in this thread and apologize for philosophy, I'm just telling you how the world is.

[Anonymous No.8139306]

>>8139301
>talk about the lack of scientific ability to explain
See:
>>8139063
>they're just qualia. essentially emotions induced in the brain in response to specific stimuli.

There is a completely scientific answer. It is not 100% fully understood in every detail. That is normal in science. That doesn't make us more accepting of bullshit.

[Anonymous No.8139322]

>>8139306
>There is a completely scientific answer. It is not 100% fully understood in every detail. That is normal in science. That doesn't make us more accepting of bullshit.
>we can't explain it but we know it must be science

[Anonymous No.8139331]

>>8139303
>muh philosophy is gud but i dont have a single reason why
gtfo, this is why /sci/ hates philosophy, because you're all worthless shits

[Anonymous No.8139335]

>>8139322
>We can't explain it so it's got to be magic

[Anonymous No.8139337]

>>8139306
>qualia
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.8139346]

>>8139335
You're out of your depth, son. The explanation you cited as "scientific" was even more unscientific than what I was talking about. Don't argue with people if you don't understand the subject.

[Anonymous No.8139349]

>>8139331
I'm not the one who came out swinging and acting like a cunt ;-)

[Anonymous No.8139383]

>>8139026
We can figure it out when we figure out how the brain works.

[Anonymous No.8139386]

>>8139346
>>8139349
>everyone on this board is the same person

>>8139322
You're a fucking moron. There is no such thing as perfect understanding.

[sagee No.8139394]

Fuck consciousness threads

No other subject on /sci/ brings out the pseudointellectuals this badly

[Anonymous No.8139396]

>>8139386
>You're a fucking moron. There is no such thing as perfect understanding.
I agree with that, what are you smoking that you think I'm disagreeing? Stop arguing against what you don't understand, bubba ;)

[Anonymous No.8139399]

>>8139394
Yeah, they attract you like a fly on a turd

[Anonymous No.8139400]

>>8139396
>if our understanding isn't perfect it's not science
I'm glad you agree with the most important part, that you're a fucking moron.

[Anonymous No.8139406]

>>8139400
Look buddy, I don't know who you are, but what you're saying is so apart from the point that you just look like an idiot. Please, stop trying to talk if you're incapable of communicating.

[Anonymous No.8139410]

>>8139026
How Can Colors Be Real If Our Eyes Aren't Real?

[Anonymous No.8139419]

>>8139349
>that image

Man that has seen some mileage.

[Anonymous No.8139435]

>>8139245
>As phenomena go they're transient
>colours are transient

lol

[Anonymous No.8139442]

>>8139406
>Please, stop trying to talk if you're incapable of communicating.
Right back atcha buddy boyo. You're backpedaling and rephrasing your previous statements.

[Anonymous No.8139448]

>>8139442
I haven't backpedaled or rephrased a single thing. You have no clue what you're even talking about, and are taking your assblasted rage out on me.

[Anonymous No.8139524]

>>8139435
they don't exist when nobody is looking at them.

so yeah, pretty transient.

[Anonymous No.8139600]

>>8139050
/thread

[Anonymous No.8139603]

>>8139240
how do we know it's wavelength that determines it and not frequency that determines it

for every wavelength of light it has one exact corresponding frequency

[Anonymous No.8139606]

>>8139603

The wave of light causes it. Wavelength and frequency are just properties of a wave

[Anonymous No.8139609]

>>8139026
What do you mean? Colors are defined by wavelength, which is based on what is effectively the energy of the wave.

>>8139524
Not really. I mean I guess you could argue that nothing exists when you aren't looking at it, but I'm assuming that we all have a sense of object permanence, here. Color is defined by an objective measure: the wavelength of the light in question (or for a material, the wavelength of light that it reflects like green for many plants).

[Anonymous No.8139627]

>>8139606
yea, but how do we KNOW it's the wavelength

[Anonymous No.8139634]

>>8139609
>Color is defined by an objective measure
no, wavelength is.

color is just how your brain interprets wavelengths hitting your retina.

without a retina or a brain there's no color.

it's a little weird there's people on /sci/ that don't naturally understand this.

[Anonymous No.8139639]

>>8139634
> color is just how your brain interprets wavelengths hitting your retina.
hurrrr
> without a retina or a brain there's no color.
durrrr

why philosophy students should shut the fuck up about science and gb2>>>/lit/

[Anonymous No.8139645]

>>8139634
Wavelength is, but how it's perceived to us is still objective. It isn't like one person sees 550 nm light as violet and some see it as red, it's yellow. It is actually absolute, and this statement has an empirical basis (unlike a lot of bullshit philosophy students try to put forward).

> it's a little weird there's people on /sci/ that don't naturally understand this.

Evidently I'm talking to one.

Color comes from nothing more than wavelength. Certain wavelengths are defined as certain colors, but that doesn't make it any less absolute than an 'invisible' wavelength like infrared at >700 nm.

http://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/EDDOCS/Wavelengths_for_Colors.html

[Anonymous No.8139647]

>>8139634
Usage of terms changes as our understanding changes. We consider it more useful to speak of "sound" as vibrations that we are capable of hearing whether or not we do. Similarly, we consider it more useful to speak of "color" as photons in specific wavelength ranges, regardless of if we are there to perceive them. It's not much different from how we speak of other wavelengths as "radio waves" which are detected by equipment but are still just photons falling into a narrower definition that we find useful.

[Anonymous No.8139649]

>>8139645
>how it's perceived to us is still objective
perceptions are never objective, always subjective.
>>8139647
>Usage of terms changes as our understanding changes
indeed.

and once you understand the process involved in perceiving color (or hearing sound, or smelling odors) you'll understand why color doesn't exist without an eye to see it.

because color isn't the wavelength of light, it's also the eye's sorting of it and the brain's interpretation of it.

this isn't controversial. You may not be familiar with it because you're uneducated, but that doesn't make you correct.

[Anonymous No.8139653]

>>8139649
>because color isn't the wavelength of light, it's also the eye's sorting of it and the brain's interpretation of it.
Not to society. The existence of various colorblindnesses does not change our agreed-upon average ranges assigned to each color. Someone with abnormal perception has to adjust to the labels shared by society.

As for "but wut if it isnt the real blue in ur mind" you should know better than to pose such a stupidass question.

You're really short-sighted for your level of hostility. Dunning-Kruger?

[Anonymous No.8139657]

>>8139653
>Dunning-Kruger?
exactly.

you're arguing that a popular understanding and usage is better than a technical one.
on a fucking science board.

this is a textbook example of Dunning Kruger.

you're a moron and you think you're smarter than your obvious superiors.

[Anonymous No.8139658]

>>8139649
>perceptions are never objective, always subjective

It doesn't matter. Our agreed colors correspond to wavelengths. And what makes you think color doesn't exist when nobody is looking at it? Because that wavelength of light that we all agree is red is still there when nobody is looking at it (again, assuming object permanence). This isn't a philosophical discussion. There exists a scientific answer, therefore philosophy is useless (not that it's really useful anywhere nowadays because it's just a more primitive form of science).

[Anonymous No.8139661]

>>8139658
>And what makes you think color doesn't exist when nobody is looking at it?
because color is your perception of wavelength.

wavelengths of light have no color without an eye to see them and a brain to perceive them.

[Anonymous No.8139662]

>>8139657
> usage is better than a technical one.

He and I both did. Yellow is defined as light with wavelength 570 nm. You're trying to make a bullshit philosophical argument that just doesn't work. Maybe check out reddit.com/r/iamverysmart/

[Anonymous No.8139663]

>>8139658
>This isn't a philosophical discussion
then stop saying "color" and start saying "wavelength."

color =/= wavelength,
one is a quale, the other is measurement.

and if you can't tell the difference between qualia and measurements you're on the wrong board.

[Anonymous No.8139664]

>>8139661
> because color is your perception of wavelength.

False. It is a word defined by wavelength. Before we knew about wavelengths it may not have been defined that way, but this is certainly not the case anymore. Whether you are looking at it or not, the light is going to exist and it's going to have a certain wavelength. Light with a wavelength of 400 nm is violet. It is going to be violet whether someone is looking at it or not.

[Anonymous No.8139665]

>>8139662
>Yellow is defined as light with wavelength 570 nm

>Yellow is the color between green and orange in the spectrum of visible light. It is the color of ripe lemons and of egg yolks.[2] It is a primary color in subtractive color, used in color printing. According to surveys in Europe, Canada and the United States, yellow is the color people often associate with amusement, gentleness, and spontaneity, but also with duplicity, envy, jealousy, avarice, and, in the U.S., with cowardice. It plays an important role in Asian culture, particularly in China, where it is seen as the color of happiness, glory, wisdom, harmony and culture.

hey look, no mention of wavelength.

[Anonymous No.8139667]

>>8139664
>It is a word defined by wavelength.

>1. the property possessed by an object of producing different sensations on the eye as a result of the way the object reflects or emits light.
look, no mention of wavelength.

shall I keep googling for you, little one?

[Anonymous No.8139668]

>>8139664
1 a : a phenomenon of light (as red, brown, pink, or gray) or visual perception that enables one to differentiate otherwise identical objects

b (1) : the aspect of the appearance of objects and light sources that may be described in terms of hue, lightness, and saturation for objects and hue, brightness, and saturation for light sources <the changing color of the sky>; also : a specific combination of hue, saturation, and lightness or brightness <comes in six colors> (2) : a color other than and as contrasted with black, white, or gray

[Anonymous No.8139669]

I want all the Jaden Smiths to pls go and stay go

[Anonymous No.8139670]

>>8139657
>you're arguing that a popular understanding and usage is better than a technical one.
What you're suggesting is TECHNICAL? Hahahahahahaha, it's handwaving "i know a little about perception and cognition AND U CANT NO NUFFIN"

I'm fully aware of the intricacies of perception that you speak of, and the sad thing is that you truly do not understand how useless your pedantry is. Your definitions set us back, as opposed to adapting to a common ground that is still useful in spite of the facts you present.

>obvious superiors
This is the difference between our posts. I'm hostile in response to hostile children. Mull it over.

I've got an early day tomorrow anon, so take your opportunity for last words that I wont read and sleep with the smug satisfaction that you "won".

[Anonymous No.8139673]

>>8139669
you are the Jaden Smith here, dipshit.

colors are qualia, subjective experiences.
not available for scientific examination.
If that disturbs your autism by all means fuck off.

[Anonymous No.8139674]

>>8139663
Color = wavelength, that's how they are defined nowadays.

> and if you can't tell the difference between qualia and measurements you're on the wrong board.

Face it, you tried to make a pedantic argument, realized you were being dumb, then tried to make it a philosophical argument. I see through it. Go try to convince someone else how smart you are, I'm not buying it.

[Anonymous No.8139675]

>>8139667
That's how it's defined scientifically, ya dunce. It's like how Websters will give you a definition of theory that is different from what it means in a scientific context. You keep trying to convince me you aren't retarded, but you sure aren't doing yourself any favors.

[Anonymous No.8139676]

>>8139670
>sleep with the smug satisfaction that you "won".
I won the instant I realized you didn't know color is subjective and then decided to insult me for your ignorance.

I know you'll read what I say. You can't help it. With any luck you'll also learn something from the encounter and then you'll win too.

[Anonymous No.8139677]

>>8139674
>that's how they are defined nowadays.
>>8139675
>That's how it's defined scientifically

I notice neither of you can find a definition that agrees with you.

I'm finished, unless you can back up your claims I think we're done here.

[Anonymous No.8139683]

>>8139050
>Why is everyone walking around not being bothered by the fact that op is a faggot.

We're very used to it by now :-/

[Anonymous No.8139686]

>>8139677
>that's how they are defined nowadays.
I assumed that you would understand that we were talking in a scientific context, I didn't think I would need to spell that out for you. Evidently I gave you too much credit.

> I'm finished, unless you can back up your claims I think we're done here.

You've never backed up your claim that color is subjective. I explained to you that because color is defined based on wavelength it is absolute. That combined with object permanence yields that color doesn't cease to exist when you look away.

[Anonymous No.8139688]

>>8139686
>still no citation
repeating bullshit doesn't make it fact.

I've posted 3 dictionary definitions that DON'T agree with you.

How about you post just one that does?

we both know you can't because you're wrong.
objectively wrong even.

[Anonymous No.8139690]

>>8139686
>color is defined based on wavelength it is absolute
show me the definition, you stupid little fuck.

[Anonymous No.8139698]

>>8139664
You are making the assumption that everyone perceive a certain wavelength in the same way. This is not necessarily true. We all agree that a wavelength of 620–750 nm is called red, but the mental state we get when light hits our eyes does not need to be the same in all humans. All people will call the wavelength of 620–750 nm red because that is how we have defined it. Take a piece of paper and write the colors and its corresponding wavelengths. Now paint small squares of colors underneath the name of the colors. Make a new row but move the square of colors one step to the right so the two rows are not identical. These two rows will represent two different persons and as you can see the sensation of color is different but no problem in communication will occur. These two persons will think that they percive color in the same way. If one of them asks for a red pencil he will recive a red pencil because both call the wavelength of 620–750 nm red even though they perceive color differently.

[Anonymous No.8139710]

>>8139688
>repeating bullshit doesn't make it fact.
You're right, now where's that proof that color ceases to exist when you aren't looking at it?

When you get that for me, why don't you just google the visible light spectrum? Also, quit samefagging, you schizophrenic.

>>8139698
> You are making the assumption that everyone perceive a certain wavelength in the same way.

No I'm not, because it doesn't matter. Red is defined a certain way. It isn't subjective. Everyone may have their own idea of what red looks like (or maybe not), but it doesn't matter because color can be defined by wavelength.

> These two persons will think that they percive color in the same way.

But that doesn't matter because color can be defined by wavelength, therefore giving an absolute definition for color.

> If one of them asks for a red pencil he will recive a red pencil because both call the wavelength of 620–750 nm red even though they perceive color differently.

I could call 700 nm light blue, but that doesn't make it true.

[Anonymous No.8139711]

>>8139688
> hey everyone, look how smart I think I am

You have a serious case of the Dunning-Krueger effect

[Anonymous No.8139722]

>>8139710
>Red is defined a certain way. It isn't subjective
still can't post that definition.

>where's that proof that color ceases to exist when you aren't looking at it?
it's in the definition you third-grader:
>producing different sensations on the eye
sensations on the eye cease to exist when the eye isn't looking.

[Anonymous No.8139904]

>>8139710
>>8139609
>What do you mean? Colors are defined by wavelength, which is based on what is effectively the energy of the wave.


wait, are you retarded enough to claim that a color is a number in some formal arithmetic ?

[Anonymous No.8139907]

>>8139904
you seem to be retarded, in that you conflate "defined by" with "is".

[Anonymous No.8139909]

>>8139907
so you agree that there were no colors before the contrived definition through wavelength.

Fucking plebs.

[Anonymous No.8139917]

I will help you a bit, you seem to be lost.

-You choose to work with some formal system encoding some logic
-then you claim that you have some number in this formal system
-then you claim that something that you call ''color'' is encoded into this formal system
-then you claim that the encoding of the number above is the encoding of the ''color'' [because somehow, you manage to have an identity relation in your formal system ?]

of course you choose not to substantiate your claims, which is odd for some undergrad claiming to be rigorous.

[Anonymous No.8139959]

>>8139026
ITT: half of /sci/ just can't cope with intangibles, stochastic systems, consciousness, etc.

[Anonymous No.8139972]

>>8139909
yes, colors came magically into existence the first time somebody defined them through wavelength. sure

[Anonymous No.8139988]

colour is not defined by wavelength

if it was, then you would be able to tell me the wavelength for magenta

there is no wavelength for magenta, because magenta is made by your brain

[Anonymous No.8139995]

>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.8140002]

>>8139627
does it matter which is which? they're proportional, we just like to use wavelengths for some reason
You can easily convert from wavelength to frequency,
so saying a laser is green because of it's wavelength is the same as saying a laser is green because of its frequency
there's no difference

[Anonymous No.8140034]

>>8139988
>if it was, then you would be able to tell me the wavelength for magenta

Magenta is a combination of two wavelengths, one near the highest wavelength we can see, one near the the lowest wavelength we can see.

>because magenta is made by your brain
That's like saying there's no such thing as water because there's no atom for water.

[Anonymous No.8140047]

>>8139988
Magenta is defined by two wavelengths, ie. how your brain responds to a mix of colors from opposite ends of the visible spectrum.

And by the gods I'm sick of this solipsism anti-science thread popping up every two days.

Science only deals with the empirical world, that doesn't make it irrelevant. Get over it.

[Anonymous No.8140057]

>>8140047
>being assblasted and wrong

your perception of color is loosely, but not absolutely related to wavelength. your reductionist numerology bullshit belongs on /r/eddit

[Anonymous No.8140063]

>>8139286
>exclusive positivism

[Anonymous No.8140074]

>>8140057
It's a simplification, but we know what pattern to expect in a normal brain viewing a particular color - or even imagining one, or reading the related word. That's as close to objectively measuring individual experiences as we can get. ...and we know a good deal about the physics and biology that leads to that interaction and reaction.

To say that we "we don't even know how colors are possible." requires you to delve outside the realm of science and into solipsistic bullshit, and basically just troll the board.

[Anonymous No.8140094]

>>8140074
>"we don't even know how colors are possible."
Never said that. >>>/r/eddit

[Anonymous No.8140102]

>>8139278
Seems like you are looking for something ''new''. Tired and bored of the ''old''? You know that the ''old'' can become the ''new'', right? Just change a perspective, and you shall become happier.

[Anonymous No.8140104]

>>8140094
Brah, I'm talking about OP who makes this thread every two days.

[Anonymous No.8140108]

Who says we don't, I do.

[Anonymous No.8140110]

>>8140108

you think you do, but you actually don't, wake up

[Anonymous No.8140188]

Reminder that people believe that what they experience is literally numbers.

[Anonymous No.8140202]

Go look at the cells at the back off your eyeballs. There are cells for red, blue, green (or Magenta/cyan/yellow), and they get triggered by light coming in through the lens and going across the cell. Inside the cell there's a special molecule. With that molecule a chemical reaction is possible that breaks a bond in the molucule when light of a certain wavelength/frequency hits it (don't know which, but I'm sure chemistry knows). The breaking of the bond triggers the cell to send a electric signal (e.g. RED) to your brain, which then processes all the signals to create what you see. There are cells for color, and cells for brightness.

[Anonymous No.8140256]

>>8140034
>That's like saying there's no such thing as water because there's no atom for water.

no it isn't

orange is also created in the brain - because the wavelength for orange also excites red cones and green cones - but orange is a single fixed wavelength nonetheless (one which we also cannot see, but the synthesised version is good enough to work with)

but magenta does not exist as a hue in the same way that orange does

[Anonymous No.8140273]

>>8140256
>but orange is a single fixed wavelength nonetheless (one which we also cannot see, but the synthesised version is good enough to work with)
That's just wrong.
Shine an orange light in your eyes, and both the red and green cones will signal your brain, same as your "synthesized version".
Also, let's not forget that even intangible things are still real (car insurance for instance).

See also:>>8139959
>half of /sci/ just can't cope with intangibles, stochastic systems, consciousness, etc.

[Anonymous No.8140281]

>>8140273
that's what i said
>because the wavelength for orange also excites red cones and green cones

but there is still only one wavelength for orange, it just happens that the red and green cones are both sensitive to this wavelength as their sensitivity rolls off at either end of each band

[Anonymous No.8140287]

>>8140281
>there is still only one wavelength for orange,
but that's wrong.

orange corresponds to a range of wavelengths.

[Anonymous No.8140289]

>>8140287
well you can say any hue is a small range as opposed to a fixed frequency, but that still doesn't make magenta a hue

[Anonymous No.8140297]

>>8140289
>well you can say any hue is a small range
but then you confuse the idiots again.

and also don't address OP's complaint, i.e. color is a quale and quales are not yet explained.

[Anonymous No.8140314]

>>8140297
yeah who cares lol

[Anonymous No.8140315]

>>8140188
It is rather absurd. It's obviously a self-configuring, self-processing language.

[Anonymous No.8140488]

>>8139042
>Not knowing what photometry is

[Anonymous No.8140616]

>>8140297
How much more could you possibly want them explained than input X causes effect Y?

[Anonymous No.8140692]

>>8140616
I want effect Y rigorously defined.

at the moment people can't even agree on what it is, much less the mechanics of it.

[Anonymous No.8140698]

>>8140692
How much more rigorously defined do you want it than a recognizable pattern response within the brain?

[Anonymous No.8140708]

>>8140488
Apologies senpai.

[Anonymous No.8140712]

>>8139026
Fucking cones in the eye you cuck

[Anonymous No.8140727]

>>8140698
orders of magnitude more?

that's fucking weak.

>How do you feel about the works of Mozart, anon?
>the paintings of Degas or the poetry of Jeffers?
>what's your opinion on Brie or Tawny Port or Lobster thermidor?

>it produces a recognizable response within the brain.

[Anonymous No.8140737]

>>8140727
We're talking about simple colors, not the collective works of Shakespeare. Baby steps.

[Anonymous No.8140840]

>>8140727
Source code that creates a simulation when interpreted by the CPU that is a human brain.

[Anonymous No.8140951]

>>8140616
You know that causation is not defined so far, right ?

[Anonymous No.8140974]

>>8140951
How much more finely do you want it defined? We know the physics that transfers the light, the biology that transfers that into information into the brain, the pattern that results in the typical brain... That those same patterns occur when the memory of the color is invoked by reading the word or being asked to imagine the color in question... What's left to define?

[Anonymous No.8140978]

>>8140974
>What's left to define?
how the pattern in the brain is turned into an experience, why that experience corresponds to an arbitrary particular color, and who or what is experiencing it.

[Anonymous No.8140981]

>>8140974
yeah and as usual, you are not able to prove that the physics that you talk about is the only one bringing the effects that you talk about.
you cannot even explain (which means prove to you) how ''the physics and biology'' allow for ''physics and biology'' to be explain itself through humans

[Anonymous No.8141009]

>>8140978
Beyond a pattern within the brain, how would one measure experience?

It seems to me you want a non-empirical scientific answer, and won't be satisfied until you have one - when by definition, you cannot have non-empirical scientific answer, for science only deals with the empirical.

>>8140981
Can you rephrase that? I've no idea what you're on about.

[Anonymous No.8141014]

>>8139026
Because gravity is the infinitely more interesting scientific unknown.

[Anonymous No.8141047]

>>8141009
>when by definition, you cannot have non-empirical scientific answer, for science only deals with the empirical.
you are getting very close.

I don't want an answer, I want /sci/ to understand that color is one of many things science can't comment on yet.

because we don't understand it.
for some reason this fact seems to cause some dissonance with a few people here.

[Anonymous No.8141065]

>>8141047
We understand color about insomuch as it is empirically possible to do so.

We don't understand "consciousness", but no science claims to do. Only as we pick apart the brain's functions we can alter it in increasingly predictable ways.

Science doesn't understand anything non-empirical, as that's outside its realm. You're into philosophy, pure subjectivity, and solipsism at that point. It can only deal with that which can be broken down into communicable and measurable parts.

There's no point in posting threads that boil down to "Nah nah! Silly scientists can't deal with the non-empirical!" cuz that's not their damned job. It's like making fun of architects because can't cook. That doesn't exactly make architecture worthless.

...And yes, some architects can cook, and just as some scientists can philosophize, but in either case, it's outside the discipline.

[Anonymous No.8141070]

>>8141065
I'm a reductionist, I absolutely don't think it will stay outside the realm of empiricism.

But you'll notice most reductionists with no biology background think they've got it pretty well explained already. Which is pretty funny actually.

I didn't make this thread.

[Anonymous No.8141084]

>>8141070
I don't see how one could go about explaining it much further, and still be in the empirical realm.

I mean, I suppose we'll eventually be able to simulate an entire brain one day, and thus follow every nook and cranny involved, but it still boils down to measurable response to stimuli, only more accurately measured.

It's kinda like saying "science can't know where babies come from" a century or two ago, simply because we couldn't track the process from the first cell division on up, as we can now.

[Anonymous No.8141103]

>>8141084
we're in the habit of generalizing about things we don't understand and then we fit the generalization into our worldview and pretend it has predictive power.

which is amusing even if not particularly helpful.

>my car is powered by a spinny thing with fire
>the spinny thing in my car broke, but I can fix it
>whoa, that spinny thing is way more complicated than I thought
every time

[Anonymous No.8141122]

>>8141103
Science doesn't claim to have reached its end... (Aside from certain patent clerks born in 1850.)

The first hypothesis is basically correct, the car does indeed runs on spiny thing with fire, but no neurologist claims such a complete knowledge of the human brain as to be able to fix everything that goes wrong when it breaks.

At the same time, there's more than a vague idea as to how colors are possible, even if every last nuance isn't accounted for, so long as you're staying within the realm of things that can be measured. ...Even the non-mechanically inclined knows when he's run out of gas.

[Anonymous No.8141340]

>>8139063
I actually worked out mathematical formulas and principles for Qualia 3 years ago.

[Anonymous No.8141348]

>>8141340
I began working on the problem when I was 16 years old.
I'm probably the only person in this thread who actually understands sensation.

[Anonymous No.8141352]

>>8139026
>>8139410
/thread

[Anonymous No.8141359]

>>8141340
I'm a genius honestly. I got a degree in physics at age 19 and a PHD at age 21.
I also placed 6th in the Putnam Competition one year.

I'm just still in the process of writing my book.
Qualia does have an explanation and there are formula you can use to predict where and of what form qualia will be produced in the universe.

They can be arrived at through certain assumptions and principles about the universe and various thought experiments.

[Anonymous No.8141436]

>>8141348
>>8141340
This gets into esoteric shit and the stoners thought: "what if the colors your seeing aren't the same colors im seeing but we'll never know since we call them the same names."

Read up on the olfactory system and differences in people's taste buds.

[Anonymous No.8141463]

>>8141436
I was shown the youtube video by another in 9th grade, but I believe I became quite curious about that question earlier in my youth.

I'd like to share my conclusion on the matter, but I don't want to say too much. For others all I'll say that color is NOT "arbitrary" and interchangeable.
Interchanging red and blue is no less absurd than interchanging sight and sound.

[Anonymous No.8141471]

>>8141436
Yes, I'm not sure when, but sometime before I entered high school I realized this and became quite curious.
Very beautiful realizations come when you begin wondering how to explain qualia consistently while also considering the general theory of relativity.

[Anonymous No.8141479]

>>8141436
I wish I could share more, but I really shouldn't.

All I'll say is that I do not believe sensation is an unnecessary aspect of existence. It is instead as essential for the functionality of the universe as gravity, electricity and magnetism, etc...
Not only this, but sensation must be possible of being described through mathematical laws. The inspiration for this comes from the realization that all things in the universe, including sensation, is subject to the most principle axioms of mathematics.

With these two things alone I spent almost every day for the past 8 years pondering how to explain qualia knowing it had to have an answer.

[Anonymous No.8141498]

So what is the link between colors and wavelength/numbers ?

[Anonymous No.8141516]

>>8141498
The wavelength is the level of vibration of ligth in his wave form, and the color is a evolutive mechanism for survival, the connection is the same as a piece of wood and a chair, one make the other

[Anonymous No.8141545]

>>8141516
A color is a mechanism?
and survival from what?

[Anonymous No.8141556]

Imagine long long ago, there was a person that couldn't see "colors" and er rhing was in black and white. Basically it was hard to see ancient animals n shit in grass or sum shit. This in turn would wreck the person's future generations. The surviving people's developed the ability to pick up color to they can see those sum bitches fore they could strike. The end

[Anonymous No.8141613]

All our empirical investigations are made through the window of consciousness. Funny then, that there are people claiming consciousness doesn't matter to our empirical investigations, that we're leaving the empirical realm by looking at the window.

The irony is not lost on me.

[Anonymous No.8141686]

>>8141613
>our
I love that all of a sudden we are part of one big family which does science each day

[Anonymous No.8141785]

>>8141613
>people claiming consciousness doesn't matter
See, this is the thing - no one claims that.

Only that it is outside the privy of science, like everything else that isn't empirical.

[Anonymous No.8141790]

>>8141545
>Is that a fruit in that mess of leaves?
>Did this make me sick the last time I ate this?
>That animal/insect has bright colors, and is some sorta bad-ass thing that is *trying* to be seen, and thus probably poisonous.
>Is that liquid staining that grass fucking blood?
>My wife will kill me if this rug doesn't match the sofa.

[Anonymous No.8141793]

>>8139026
Wavelengths of radiation reflecting against solid objects interpreted as accurately as possible by our sensors. (eyes)

[Anonymous No.8141798]

>>8141793
>as accurately as possible

What is colour blindness?

[Anonymous No.8141801]

>>8141798
Defective sensors.

[Anonymous No.8141832]

>>8141516
This explains nothing about the general laws which apply themselves to sensation.

[Anonymous No.8141866]

>>8141832
Exactly which part of this chain of response to stimuli process is unexplained?

[Anonymous No.8142283]

>>8141866
What you said is not necessarily incorrect, but if someone from the 1400's tried to explain gravity to you without reference to mathematics you'd know there explanation was far from complete.

[Anonymous No.8142301]

>>8141866
the part where seeing a color is an experience that invokes certain feelings in something we call a person.

[Anonymous No.8142303]

>>8142283
No explanation for anything will ever be complete until we unravel all the secrets of the universe.

But that's a far cry from, "We don't know how colors are possible." You could literally fill volumes on what we do know, from either end. In another 500 years, barring a dark age, we'll know more detail, sure, but much like we still use formulas from Issac Newton for gravity to this day, many of the basics we know today will likely remain.

The fact that your monitor can reproduce any color of the rainbow, and then some, on command, kinda suggests we have some of the mechanics down.

[Anonymous No.8142304]

>>8141866
What you said was not necessarily incorrect, however if someone from the past attempted to explain gravity to you without reference to mathematics you'd know their explanation was far from complete.

[Anonymous No.8142315]

>>8142301
Science can tell us what reactions the average brain makes to certain colors. Science can tell us how to alter the brain to invoke certain feelings (and we can do this mechanically, to a degree). But if you are dissatisfied with the idea that certain reactions within brain equate to individual experience, you are beyond the realm of science, for it only deals with that which can be measured communicably.

[Anonymous No.8142320]

>>8142303
you don't understand. We need to know under what circumstances sensation is produced and have an explanation for what the overall experience of consciousness will be in the system.

[Anonymous No.8142322]

>>8142315
It needs a precise mathematical explanation at the most primitive level. Until then we understand nothing.

[Anonymous No.8142328]

Everything in existence which is subject to the most basic axioms of arithmetic can be reduced to a mathematical explanation.

The reason we're able to explain so much of the universe with mathematics is because everything is capable of being measured and compared to other quantities.

You guys are fucking hopeless.

[Anonymous No.8142331]

>>8142322
We know what patterns to observe from a normal brain when exposed to specific colors. Patterns within the brain are as close as you can get to measuring experience within another being. Beyond that, you're in the realm of the non-empirical.

>>8142322
We don't have a precise mathematical explanation for anything at the most primitive level. We've still not measured that top quark.

We, nonetheless, can build models that accurately predict action and reaction, and in terms of things the brain does, experiencing colors is among the better understood. Same with its reaction to specific tones... Now if you want to get into something as complex as a movie with music, that's another thing, though even there it's not as if we can't say anything about it.

[Anonymous No.8142341]

>>8142328
Math is merely the smallest and most concise quanta our conciseness can process and communicate. Anything that can't be broken down to said is extra-empirical, but that doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist, only that it cannot be analyzed or described.

[Anonymous No.8142349]

>>8142331
Everything you're saying is useless. A precise explanation exists. It may be difficult to verify and only deducible by very thorough thought experiments, but it exists.

[Anonymous No.8142353]

>>8142349
Oh, I'm sure the explanation will be more precise over time, but it will always boil down to input X cause reaction Y.

It seems what OP's "we can't know nothing" advocates are demanding is something deeper than that, give how elaborate in depth that current explanation already is.

[Anonymous No.8142356]

>>8142341
I can't talk about this anymore. You're like aristotle who claims there are 8 fundamental types of motion and that's all there is to it.

[Anonymous No.8142362]

>>8142353
Whenever a major breakthrough is made and X reaction causes Y is finally achieved to a precise level of accuracy, our understanding of consciousness will explode.

There are always philosophical problems for everything, but consciousness will suddenly become only as strange as any other question such as "what IS gravity?" what IS electricity?"

We'll simply come to accept that F = ma.

[Anonymous No.8142367]

>>8142362
I r saying, regardless of the level of accuracy, it will still merely be a pattern in the brain.

We already have a basic version of that for colors, and OP still isn't satisfied. I don't think a more refined pattern is somehow going to make the difference.

[Anonymous No.8142376]

>>8142356
Oddly, I thought I was saying the exact opposite.

[Anonymous No.8142385]

Ok, this "qualia" crap has got to stop.
It was debunked a long time ago, and some douchelord just discovered the concept, not realizing it's as outdated as phrenology.

Hey, idiot. We know how sense work.
We've known for a long, long, long, long time.
There is zero mystery to it.
We completely understand everything about cognition. How the fuck do you think we developed computers and AI? Magic?
Do you think AI are "qualia" machines?

Jesus fucking christ.
"qualia!" "qualia!" "qualia!"
"qualia!" "qualia!" "qualia!"
"qualia!" "qualia!" "qualia!"
Stop already you fucking idiotic faggot.
STOP.

If we already have all the answers, why do you keep asking? It's fucked up.
It like saying "you know, I just found out what the word AXIOM means, so I'm going to use it incorrectly and shit post about it for 3 weeks straight because I think I'm smart because I just learned a word....hmmmmmmm?"
Fuck you.

[Anonymous No.8142394]

>>8142367
I'm sorry, I've always been very emotional and always understood scientific and mathematical concepts intuitively which makes it hard for me to say what I want to say precisely.

All I'm saying is that the pinnacle of human understanding is X causes Y. That is science.

One day laws and principles will be proposed explaining under what circumstances sensation will be produced and it will not exist on the macroscopic level, but the molecular.

[Anonymous No.8142408]

>>8142394
Well, yes, but I'm saying we have a macroscopic, and some microscopic, explanation as to how the sensation is produced already.

I mean, if you're satisfied with the concept that a pattern in the brain = sensation, fine, but I don't think OP is. Indeed, I think a lot of people are not. Further, I don't think you can ever say anything about it empirically beyond that, as even if you have a complete simulation of the human brain and its surrounds, all you can hope to do is describe that reaction more precisely. To say anything beyond that, you have to leave the realm of science and can say basically whatever you want.

[Anonymous No.8142412]

>>8142385
this is how butthurt scientismfags become when they realize that their epistemological paradigm is incapable of explaining the most basic facts of human existence.

[Anonymous No.8142422]

>>8142408
Did you not read what I just said?
I think what it is is that I have a lot of general beliefs about sensation which are very unorthodox and largely untouched in philosophy.
People rarely come equipped with those beliefs.

For instance, I believe that sensation is not exclusive to the human brain and is produced whenever ANY system interacts. In other words two molecules interacting will have sensation in one form or another.

[Anonymous No.8142426]

>>8142408
My justification for this belief is founded on very sensible and thorough grounds, but I won't go into it at the moment.

[Anonymous No.8142428]

>>8142426
Well that's helpful...

[Anonymous No.8142434]

>>8142422
I... Think you'd have to have a very broad definition of sensation then.

Granted, as we're dancing around the edge of talking about consciousness, no one seems to have a real good definition for that either... Even the medical and legal definitions are pretty vague.

[Anonymous No.8142438]

>>8142434
Yes, that is true

I for instance disagree with how qualia is defined in philosophy and thus do not like to use it

I've never found a very good way to define what exactly my understanding of sensation is.
It seems the English language just doesn't have a precise equivalent.

[Anonymous No.8142441]

>>8142434
In our everyday lives sensation is something which we as humans are capable of observing and using it to "verify our existence". That is, it is inconceivable to have that sensation and not exist.

However it is possible to have sensation while not being aware of it. The fact that we are aware of the sensation we experience is due to how the molecules in our brain interact, but if they interacted in a different way we might experience sensation which we were not aware of.

[Anonymous No.8142464]

>>8142438
If you read my post before you deleted it you're free to question. Lots can be found from that simple assumption and a bit of imagination.

Bear in mind I found this belief when I was 16 and it's been 5 years since then.
I want to finish this rather than spread around a half baked idea.