|
Light
Sept 26, 2012 12:57:24 GMT 1
Post by mrsonde on Sept 26, 2012 12:57:24 GMT 1
If a question is always going to invoke the subjective experiences of whoever is making an observation of this or that phenomenon, then may I respectfully suggest this is wondering into the area of philosophy, not science. You're the one who asked about "red" and "blue" and how they arose from different frequencies of light. It was your OP wasn't it? On the contrary. The history of science would be a very sorry story indeed without the contributions of philosophy. It doesn't need one. Questions of philosophy of science, metaphysics, and epistemology are all naturally encompassed by the catch-all "science" - or, rather, it's the other way around, strictly speaking. Other branches of philosophy probably won't arise here, I'd have thought.
|
|
|
Light
Sept 26, 2012 13:09:50 GMT 1
Post by mrsonde on Sept 26, 2012 13:09:50 GMT 1
Don't worry about it, I don't think anybody is going to prevent us doing a little philosophising, and anyway we can always expostulate in the "friendly" chat room. Well, if you look at my original question, it was posed as a scientific query requiring a scientific answer but seems now have become a deep philosophical issue Actually, it's the other way around. It's a perfectly legitimate scientific problem - what are colours, how are they caused. They're part of our experience as much as any other feature of the world. It's the adoption of the 17th Century metaphysical view outlined by fascinating, and in his link, that is the philosophical (in the sense of "non-scientific" that you mean) aspect. That is - it's the answer of dualistic scientism that's purely metaphysical, with a deliberately excluding non-scientific definition as part of that metaphysic: by definition, colours are "subjective" and not part of the objective world (therefore not part of science's purview.) The fact that this metaphysic makes no rational sense doesn't bother them, on the whole. Very few scientists are thinkers, as such. You asked the question. You asked how red and blue light was associated with photons of differing energies. So far the answer you've been given has informed you that high energy photons have high energy, and low energy photons have low energy, and there are things in the eye that can cleverly detect the difference. Why on earth you should be satisfied with that I have no idea - but given that you are, it's no more of a puzzle than why you asked the question in the first place! So you believe this is a "scientific" answer to your query, do you? All you've been told is that cells in the eye can tell the difference between differing frequencies of em radiation. This is then passed onto the brain. Where's your "red" and "blue"?
|
|
|
Light
Sept 26, 2012 13:12:11 GMT 1
Post by mrsonde on Sept 26, 2012 13:12:11 GMT 1
I apologise fascinating, if you are in fact a lady rather than a he. It's just the impression I've formed. I won't say it's a compliment, but it's not an insult either.
|
|
|
Light
Sept 26, 2012 13:24:36 GMT 1
Post by fascinating on Sept 26, 2012 13:24:36 GMT 1
mrsonde, I think I totally disagree with you. The subjective experience of redness or blueness is profoundly different in nature from the wavelength of light, and the physiology that senses light that is of the red or blue frequencies.
|
|
|
Light
Sept 26, 2012 13:30:59 GMT 1
Post by mrsonde on Sept 26, 2012 13:30:59 GMT 1
mrsonde, I think I totally disagree with you. Good. We can have an interesting debate about it then. And what is the evidence for this bold claim sir? It's beyond me how there could be any evidence for it - do you believe that you or anyone else has some sort of immediate access to a world outside of subjective experience? Some sort of "objective experience"? What's that like then? I suspect you mean that immediate sensory experience is a different sort of experience to a logico-mathematical construct. Yes. Where does that get us?
|
|
|
Light
Sept 26, 2012 13:43:13 GMT 1
Post by mrsonde on Sept 26, 2012 13:43:13 GMT 1
Put it this way then. What evidence is there that the colours of light - the redness, blueness, whatever - are not just as "real" and as fully objective an "intrinsic property" of electromagnetic radiation as its frequency, wavelength, phase, or any other of its "primary" qualities? All you've ever experienced are the colours, after all; and you've never experienced the wavelength, frequency, photon energies etcetera without experiencing those colours (or at least the possibility thereof, if you looked.)
On what basis then are you so confident in your assertion that the thing you experience is not real - or only "subjectively" so, in a very different way to what you mean by really real - and the postulated mathematical features of the thing that you experience, which in themselves have no sensory content whatsoever, are the only properties that are "objectively" there?
The truth is it's a metaphysic that didn't make much sense even in the 16th Century, and was exposed as such not long afterwards. Since then however it's become the ruling set of assumptions of scientists, and slowly but surely has been disseminated as such throughout the modern educated mind. So much so that it's as difficult to shake off as the medieval mind found it to stop seeing the world as a battleground between God and the Devil. Once you do so, however, it's awesomely obvious how empty and groundless such a metaphysic is. We do not live in a Reality composed entirely of mathematical constructs and conceptual models - the world is not The Matrix.
|
|
|
Light
Sept 26, 2012 14:20:00 GMT 1
Post by fascinating on Sept 26, 2012 14:20:00 GMT 1
All I know is my own subjective experience. In talking about my subjective experience of redness, I am simply pointing out the reality of that. One can describe the light of the red frequency/wavelength and its electromagnetic properties, but that description does not communicate what I mean by the experience of redness. In a book I read there was the fictional example of a scientist who was colour blind. He happened to study the physiology of vision, people told him about colour vision, and by years of study he was able to identify the entire mechanism of colour vision. But that still never knew the experience of redness, until one day he had a bump on the head and for some reason he could now see in colour.
The world I have immediate access to is subjective experience. I suppose objective experience is a consensus of many subjective experiences of many individuals?
The subjective experience of redness, or whatever, must, by definition, have a subject that is doing the experiencing. Conceivably the experience of redness might be a property of the light itself, in other words the light is an experiencing self, which has the sole experience in its entire existence of redness. There are problems with that however, because the light, as it were, dies when it hits the protein in the eye, and the experiencing of redness appears to take place in the brain.
The point is, all I can say is that the subjective experience of redness is real. In talking about that experience I am not talking about the frequency or wavelength or whatever of light; the subjective experience of redness is not the same as those things.
I have been trying to emphasise all along that my subjective experience of redness is real. I only use the word subjective because I am talking about my own experience only, which is the only experience I can be sure about. Everybody else might be an automaton for all I know. I don't believe everybody else is, but how can I be sure? I am still unsure what you are driving at.
|
|
|
Light
Sept 26, 2012 14:48:42 GMT 1
Post by striker16 on Sept 26, 2012 14:48:42 GMT 1
My question was about light, not the visual system of human beings. If science and philosophy were not kept separate we would never get anywhere because we would continually be examining our subjective experiences and forget about the original question, as has happened here.
Philosophy can aid science but only in attempting to answer scientific questions , not be indulged in when not relevant.
That's ridiculous. You have to stick to the point when answering scientific questions, something you do not seem able to do. Why do you think most well run MBs insist that posters stay on-topic? You have managed to turn what was a scientific question into a psychological one and made this thread into a farce. Are you proud of yourself?
|
|
|
Light
Sept 26, 2012 15:02:48 GMT 1
Post by mrsonde on Sept 26, 2012 15:02:48 GMT 1
Well, I'm supposed to be working, so I'll have to keep this brief, and apologies because it deserves more. I'll return to it later; but for the moment, a couple of points: Yes, with you...with the proviso that it's begging the question a little to suppose that this fellow has identified the entire mechanism of colour. No - because he's lacking the necessary parts of the mechanism, no? Errr...well, maybe, but let's try and not get distracted down that route. Shall we stick to the idea you've already proposed - the wavelength/frequency etc are intrinsic properties of objective reality, and the sensory experiences are something else. That's the usual objective/subjective split in science - it's exactly coincidental with Galileo's and Locke's primary/secondary quality distinction. Yes, but only by your definition of "subjective". I'm saying that every event that such experience consists in is just as objective - consisting entirely of primary qualities, if you like - as the wavelngth/frequency description. It's just I'm saying secondary qualities are "primary" too. Red light has such and such a wavelength, but that's not what makes it red. It's the fact that it's red that makes it red. Or, if you like, it's the frequency/energy of the electromagnetic representation of the visual field in the brain that is red - though of course, by Occam's Razor, there's no reason to suppose there are two different frequencies/energies involved in this description. Yes, that's possible. A bit extravagant. A far more simple metaphysical population of the universe would just say that light has colour. It's energy, vibrating - colour is just one of the properties it has. Whether any experiencing subject experiences it or not. I don't see the problem, sorry? Of course experiencing takes place in the brain, by definition. How does that enable you to decide which features of your experience are there before you experience them, or not? How do you know? Why shouldn't it be? I agree with you - nobody knows but an infinitesimal fraction of what goes on in the brain, how perception actually works. But what we do know seems to strongly suggest that there's an electromagnetic field generated by electrochemical activity in its cells, and that this furnishes us with our experience (and everything else we call "subjective".) Okay - I'll come back and try to clarify later. For the moment, what I'm addressing is your: How can you be sure of that? It's more serious than that, in fact: what reason have you to suppose it's even plausible?
|
|
|
Light
Sept 26, 2012 15:17:52 GMT 1
Post by mrsonde on Sept 26, 2012 15:17:52 GMT 1
My question was about light, not the visual system of human beings. Then your question was a meaningless tautology, wasn't it? What you should have written was not: But: To which the answer would have been: ...and we could have all thunk about something else instead. You're thinking of phenomenology, not philosophy. There is no scientific questions that are not shot through and through with philosophical content. Conceptual assumptions, linguistic structures, metaphysical theories, the meaning of the very terms used in science. What is a "force"? What is "energy"? "Entropy"? What is the nature of mathematics, in a field where the leading luminaries can claim a wave-function is the only reality that exists? That's ridiculous. You have to stick to the point when answering scientific questions, something you do not seem able to do.[/quote] Ha! ;D In translating your tautology into something meaningful? It wasn't an onerous task, I admit, but better done than not all the same. It wouldn't be much of a board if every thread was of the order: or or
|
|
|
Light
Sept 26, 2012 15:19:41 GMT 1
Post by fascinating on Sept 26, 2012 15:19:41 GMT 1
mrsonde, are you not aware that the brain does not have any light in it? As far as I know there is no electromagnetic radiation there, there are only electrochemicals, that means ions, that means atoms and molecules with positive and negative charges. So this idea that the sensation/perception of redness is a property of light itself has no basis.
My main point would be that qualitative subjective-experiencing is going on and that is a profoundly different thing in nature to physical things like wavelength and frequency; more different than, for example, than the difference between energy and space.
|
|
|
Light
Sept 26, 2012 15:38:32 GMT 1
Post by mrsonde on Sept 26, 2012 15:38:32 GMT 1
mrsonde, are you not aware that the brain does not have any light in it? Au contraire, mon frere. It's a buzzing cauldron of the stuff. Hmmm...What is it that you think an EEG measures, fascinating? Or a magnetoencephalograph? Neuronal activity is but an unbelievably complex interplay of AC generators. The glial cells are a vast DC network. The whole thing runs on electricity, like the rest of the body. Every single cell is radiating on a wide range of frequencies, from way into the infrared to down to sub-Hertz wavelengths. We are the Body Electric. No - it's the only thing that makes sense. Our visual field - all our perceptual representations, in fact - are an internally generated and widely distributed electromagnetic field, operating over very large areas if not the entirety of the brain. A great deal is known about this, I'm not making it up, or being in the slightest way whimsical. I can recommend you start with Karl Pribram's work, if you want to get a handle on this. Then move onto Patricia and Paul Churchland, perhaps, for starters. Yes, and I've asked you: what has led you to suppose there's any truth in this point? What evidence is there for it, for a start? We'll come to whether there's any sense in it later. Gotta go.
|
|
|
Light
Sept 26, 2012 16:28:44 GMT 1
Post by striker16 on Sept 26, 2012 16:28:44 GMT 1
My question was about light, not the visual system of human beings. Then your question was a meaningless tautology, wasn't it? Only if you do not apply commonsense. Without commonsense there would be little in the way of meaningful discussion. All I mentioned was light and the colours thereof, therefore, there was no implication that the human visual system was being brought into question. That would have been an unjustified assumption on your or anyone else's part. Again, I posed this question in a what is supposed to be a science forum so anything other than a scientific response is illogical. Do you do misinterpret questions on other subjects in the same way? You have to apply context mrsonde. Incidentally, phenomenology is a philosophical subject, not a physics one. As for tautology, well, I think you'd be much happier in a philosophy forum yet you do not think we need one here. Is this because you simply try to turn every discussion into a philosophy debate due to lack of knowledge in the field to which the question relates? I can now see why you have problems with grasping the physics of gyroscopes - you prefer flights of fancy to objective reality.
|
|
|
Light
Sept 26, 2012 16:43:37 GMT 1
Post by mrsonde on Sept 26, 2012 16:43:37 GMT 1
Then your question was a meaningless tautology, wasn't it? Only if you do not apply commonsense. Without commonsense there would be little in the way of meaningful discussion. All I mentioned was light and the colours thereof, therefore, there was no implication that the human visual system was being brought into question. I suggest you give some serious thought to what you mean by the word "colour". You have contrasted it in your OP with the energy of light. In what does that contrast consist, then, if you're not merely being tautologous? That when you use the terms "red" and "blue" you are referring to our visual perception of them? Well, tell me - what else are the terms referring to, if we're expected to exclude that? I'm giving you a scientific response. And it would help if you talked sense once in a while. Correct. Physics on the other hand is a philosophical subject, as is all science, and every other aspect of human knowledge: it's dealt with at endless length in the philosophical subjects of epistemology, metaphysics, the philosophy of science, and various other tangential disciplines. Nearly every scientific question has a crux of philosophical problems at its core, it's true. But if you want a purely empirical discourse explaining how vision operates, I can provide that, to pretty near contemporary thoroughness. But given the primary school simplicity that you've now revealed your OP to be limited to, I wouldn't want to confuse you any further to be frank. You have consistently and persistently shown that you completely fail to understand the first thing about the physics of gyroscopes. You just bullshit, and make it up as you go along, I'm sorry to tell you.
|
|
|
Light
Sept 26, 2012 17:22:52 GMT 1
Post by striker16 on Sept 26, 2012 17:22:52 GMT 1
mrsonde, my OP was as follows:
"Why does blue light have high energy photons while red light has low energy photons?"
Now how could this question possibly be misconstrued as one about the human visual system? It was clearly addressing the physics of light and no implication was made about how people process sensory information from the environment. A kid would have understood the context of this question and yet, for some strange reason, you were unable to. In my view you simply enjoy being provocative in order to gain attention, but I suppose I could be wrong, after all, I do not know you.
The upshot of all this though, is that my original question seems to have been disregarded in favour of a silly, childish quarrel of your making and I am no more knowledgeable about light than I was before I asked the question.
I think this highlights my long held view that this forum is in dire need of a proper moderation process and although I despise over-moderation, where you literally have to be careful about every word you type, no moderation at all so easily leads to what has transpired here, encouraging trolls and cranks to peddle their barmy pet subjects which are impervious to rational discussion.
|
|