"What it is like to see the color red"

[TheVat]

On 9/19/2023 at 7:09 AM, exchemist said:

Massimo Pigliucci has little time for the "hard problem". He doesn't think it is a problem at all, but arises from a category error: https://philosophynow.org/issues/99/What_Hard_Problem

I'm inclined to agree. 

That's a helpful short essay.  He has a strong point that we will be misusing the term explanation when we try to have it encompass experience.  As he says, I can in theory offer a complete explanation of how I see the color red, but that cannot include the phenomenal experience I have in so doing.  Subjective experience or qualia as the cognitive philosophers call it, are simply a different category from objective functional explanations.  

His concluding comment is spot on (which  to my brain, looks like an arrow hitting a bullseye)...

Consciousness as we have been discussing it is a biological process, explained by neurobiological and other cognitive mechanisms, and whose raison d’etre can in principle be accounted for on evolutionary grounds. To be sure, it is still largely mysterious, but (contra Dennett and Churchland) it is no mere illusion (it’s too metabolically expensive, and it clearly does a lot of important cognitive work), and (contra Chalmers, Nagel, etc.) it does not represent a problem of principle for scientific naturalism.

[mistermack]

38 minutes ago, studiot said:

Of course red plus green makes brown.

Red and green make yellow. It's red blue and green that make brown. 

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

Red and green make yellow. It's red blue and green that make brown. 

RGB is white in mixed light photon terms and brown in pigments.

[Genady]

As we all know, the image I've presented earlier (https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/132496-what-it-is-like-to-see-the-color-red/?do=findComment&comment=1250647) belongs to phenomena called "optical illusions". But is it an illusion? By the definition in Optical illusion Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster, optical illusion is

Quote

a misleading image presented to the vision

But is it misleading? What is there misleading about it?

It could be considered misleading if we expected the brain to perceive identically lights of equal frequencies. But why would we expect it? Why would brain evolve in this way? What it'd be good for? Brain is not a laboratory instrument. It is an organ that helps us to survive.

Colors in the brain is a phenomenon by itself, which is related to but different from the colors in light. For example, I can imagine an advantage of seeing differently a red fruit hanging high on a tree against light sky background (not interesting) and the same red fruit hanging low against green foliage background (useful).

 

 

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

That's a helpful short essay.  He has a strong point that we will be misusing the term explanation when we try to have it encompass experience.  As he says, I can in theory offer a complete explanation of how I see the color red, but that cannot include the phenomenal experience I have in so doing.  Subjective experience or qualia as the cognitive philosophers call it, are simply a different category from objective functional explanations.  

His concluding comment is spot on (which  to my brain, looks like an arrow hitting a bullseye)...

Consciousness as we have been discussing it is a biological process, explained by neurobiological and other cognitive mechanisms, and whose raison d’etre can in principle be accounted for on evolutionary grounds. To be sure, it is still largely mysterious, but (contra Dennett and Churchland) it is no mere illusion (it’s too metabolically expensive, and it clearly does a lot of important cognitive work), and (contra Chalmers, Nagel, etc.) it does not represent a problem of principle for scientific naturalism.

Yes, it is one of my go-to references for this kind of discussion.  

[studiot]

8 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Yes, it is one of my go-to references for this kind of discussion.  

I think Genady has a good point in

12 minutes ago, Genady said:

As we all know, the image I've presented earlier (https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/132496-what-it-is-like-to-see-the-color-red/?do=findComment&comment=1250647) belongs to phenomena called "optical illusions". But is it an illusion? By the definition in Optical illusion Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster, optical illusion is

But is it misleading? What is there misleading about it?

It could be considered misleading if we expected the brain to perceive identically lights of equal frequencies. But why would we expect it? Why would brain evolve in this way? What it'd be good for? Brain is not a laboratory instrument. It is an organ that helps us to survive.

Colors in the brain is a phenomenon by itself, which is related to but different from the colors in light. For example, I can imagine an advantage of seeing differently a red fruit hanging high on a tree against light sky background (not interesting) and the same red fruit hanging low against green foliage background (useful).

 

 

 

However I don't quite see the point of this thread.

[Genady]

17 minutes ago, studiot said:

I think Genady has a good point in

 

However I don't quite see the point of this thread.

Thank you.

Well, I think that the OP has been answered (to my satisfaction.)

[TheVat]

Next week's topic:  What it's like to be Margot Robbie.

 

400 years in the future, the quantum cognitive brain emulator, or QCBE, will allow anyone to temporarily become anyone who has been paid to provide their complete connectome down to quantum states of every brain atom, thus having their experiences and reactions to them.  People who love chocolate, but can't eat chocolate for health reasons, will be able to hook up the QCBE and temporarily become Bob, who ioves chocolate, has extremely sensitive tastebuds and can gorge on it without ill effects while his entire brain lights up with pleasure and bliss....

[StringJunky]

4 hours ago, Genady said:

As we all know, the image I've presented earlier (https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/132496-what-it-is-like-to-see-the-color-red/?do=findComment&comment=1250647) belongs to phenomena called "optical illusions". But is it an illusion? By the definition in Optical illusion Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster, optical illusion is

But is it misleading? What is there misleading about it?

It could be considered misleading if we expected the brain to perceive identically lights of equal frequencies. But why would we expect it? Why would brain evolve in this way? What it'd be good for? Brain is not a laboratory instrument. It is an organ that helps us to survive.

Colors in the brain is a phenomenon by itself, which is related to but different from the colors in light. For example, I can imagine an advantage of seeing differently a red fruit hanging high on a tree against light sky background (not interesting) and the same red fruit hanging low against green foliage background (useful).

 

 

The perception of colour has three elements, I think: Wavelength of incident light, wavelength of the reflected light and then how the brain processes it. That's room for a lot of variability between individual observers.

[wtf]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

The perception of colour has three elements, I think: Wavelength of incident light, wavelength of the reflected light and then how the brain processes it. That's room for a lot of variability between individual observers.

Aren't you forgetting subjective experience? You can know everything there is to know about the physics of light and how the brain processes signals from the optic nerve, yet know nothing at all about "what it's like" to see the color red.

There's a famous philosophical thought experiment on this subject, Mary's Room. Mary is a neuroscientist who knows everything there is to know about photons, wavelengths, the biochemistry of the retina and the optic nerve and the optical processing regions of the brain. She can tell you exactly what happens, down to the molecule, when red light enters the eye.

Thing is, she's spent her entire life in a room painted black and white. Her computer screen is monochrome. She has never seen color.

One day, she's allowed out of the room. She experiences color for the first time, and now knows something she did not know before: What it's like to see color.

She now has knowledge that she did not previously have. This shows that qualia, the subjective experience of the senses, constitutes knowledge. There is knowledge that can not be obtained from mere understanding of physical processes.

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

Of course philosophers have objections, and this is not the last word on the subject. But to say, as you did, that "The perception of colour has three elements, I think: Wavelength of incident light, wavelength of the reflected light and then how the brain processes it," missed the most important element of perception: subjective experience. You can not account for that by knowing only of the physical mechanisms of the photons and the brain.

Edited September 20, 2023 by wtf

[StringJunky]

29 minutes ago, wtf said:

Aren't you forgetting subjective experience? You can know everything there is to know about the physics of light and how the brain processes signals from the optic nerve, yet know nothing at all about "what it's like" to see the color red.

I thought this covered the subjective experience element:

Quote

 ....and then how the brain processes it.

 'We' are our brains configurations.

Edited September 20, 2023 by StringJunky

[TheVat]

2 hours ago, wtf said:

Aren't you forgetting subjective experience? You can know everything there is to know about the physics of light and how the brain processes signals from the optic nerve, yet know nothing at all about "what it's like" to see the color red.

There's a famous philosophical thought experiment on this subject, Mary's Room. Mary is a neuroscientist who knows everything there is to know about photons, wavelengths, the biochemistry of the retina and the optic nerve and the optical processing regions of the brain. She can tell you exactly what happens, down to the molecule, when red light enters the eye.

Thing is, she's spent her entire life in a room painted black and white. Her computer screen is monochrome. She has never seen color.

One day, she's allowed out of the room. She experiences color for the first time, and now knows something she did not know before: What it's like to see color.

She now has knowledge that she did not previously have. This shows that qualia, the subjective experience of the senses, constitutes knowledge. There is knowledge that can not be obtained from mere understanding of physical processes.

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

Of course philosophers have objections, and this is not the last word on the subject. But to say, as you did, that "The perception of colour has three elements, I think: Wavelength of incident light, wavelength of the reflected light and then how the brain processes it," missed the most important element of perception: subjective experience. You can not account for that by knowing only of the physical mechanisms of the photons and the brain.

 

On 9/19/2023 at 7:31 AM, TheVat said:

The whole "what's it like" discussion in philosophy of mind addresses what's called the Knowledge Argument, against physicalism.  

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

This summarizes the argument and the famous thought experiment called Mary's Room, developed by Frank Jackson.

Dennett, predictably , argues that there's no need for qualia.

 

Thanks to everyone who read the thread, and links, before commenting.  It really makes for a richer give-and-take between participants.

And thanks for reading the part of the thread regarding Pigliucci et al and category errors and qualia.  

 

[wtf]

8 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Thanks to everyone who read the thread, and links, before commenting.  It really makes for a richer give-and-take between participants.

And thanks for reading the part of the thread regarding Pigliucci et al and category errors and qualia.  

Snark suits you so well. Have you a substantive argument? Of course not. Else you'd have made it.

I mentioned Mary's Room to @StringJunky because the argument challenges the claim he made, whether that link was given earlier or not.

Edited September 20, 2023 by wtf

[TheVat]

14 hours ago, wtf said:

Snark suits you so well. Have you a substantive argument? Of course not. Else you'd have made it.

I did.  Back up the thread, eleven posts up.  Agreed with Pigliucci on category error, and disagreed with Dennett, Churchland, et al that it's an illusion.  There was a whole chat and everything.  After two pages touching on subjective experience you stroll in and....

16 hours ago, wtf said:

Aren't you forgetting subjective experience?

I think my response to that was the soul of restraint, considering.  

And now I'm done here.  

[Alysdexic]

On 9/20/2023 at 3:01 PM, StringJunky said:

colour

colour -> color

[StringJunky]

2 hours ago, Alysdexic said:

colour -> color

My ancestors were raped and pillaged by the French.

[Alysdexic]

49 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

the French

That's why I drop the Norman yogh in words and daily damn the Francish cretins.

(My first smile of the week, thanks.)