I don’t understand where this perceived confusion comes from (despite, or because, I read much of the relevant literature).
If we have an electronic device that emits light at 450THz and another that detects light and reports what “color” it is (red), then we can build/execute all of that without accounting for “redness” (except of course in the step where it decides what to call the “color”). Is there a problem here?
Is color a special topic here? Do we have the same issues in phenomenology of sound?
If we have an electronic device that outputs sound at 264.298 Hz and another that detects sound and reports the “musical note” (middle C) then we can build/execute all of that without reference to “middle C -ness”. Is this a problem?
I would like to see a better reply to this comment. Why doesn’t this address the problem of Color from the OP? Is it because the jump from wavelength to the label of “Blue” hasn’t been defined?
From the OP:
So if you intend to tell me that reality consists solely of physics, mathematics, or computation, you need to tell me where the colors are.
I’m not trying to be tricksy or smart. I am trying to understand the question and why the above isn’t an answer. In essence, all confusion would be lifted if you replaced the words “red” and “green” with something else in the following paragraph:
Whether your physics consists of fields and particles in space, or [...] whatever—I don’t see anything red or green there, and yet I do see it right now, here in reality.
As in,
Whether your physics consists of fields and particles in space, or [...] whatever—I don’t see anything {word A} or {word B} there, and yet I do see {word C} right now, here in reality.
Words A, B, and C all belong to some category and that category is not “seen” in physics but is “seen” in reality. Thomblake is trying to use “wavelengths”:
Whether your physics consists of fields and particles in space, or [...] whatever—I don’t see [any wavelengths] there, and yet I do see [wavelengths] right now, here in reality.
This makes no sense to me, so something must be wrong in my translations. What is it?
Physics contains waves and physics contains lengths, so if someone were to say “physics contains wavelengths!”, I wouldn’t object, because I can see the wavelengths in the ontology of physics. But if someone says “physics contains colors”, I don’t see them and I have a problem; and if someone says “colors are wavelengths”, I also have a problem, because I don’t see what’s color-like about a wavelength. How does being 650 nanometers long make an object red?
Most people here aren’t saying red is a wavelength anyway. They’re saying red is an aspect of a brain state normally caused by light of a certain wavelength arriving at the eye. But the problem is the same, it’s just that the physical property supposedly identical with “being red” is far more complex and not completely specified.
[I]f someone says “colors are wavelengths”, I also have a problem, because I don’t see what’s color-like about a wavelength. How does being 650 nanometers long make an object red?
I guess my only response is that if you change the wavelength, its redness disappears. If you return the wavelength to the right frequency, redness returns. Similar experiments can be done for each color in turn.
Presumably, experiments can also be done to damage the eye so that it doesn’t respond to certain frequencies and the ability to perceive redness disappears.
Do these things imply some connection between redness and wavelengths? If not, than I feel I still am not understanding what you mean by Color. What is Color? Or is that the whole point of the question?
ETA: After thinking a little more, I may have gotten closer to understanding. The relationship between wavelengths and color may only go one way. Wavelengths may turn into Colors via the eye, but not every experience of a Color implies wavelengths hitting the eye. Examples of the latter are hallucinations and dreams. So the question remains, “Where is the color?” If the answer is “Wavelengths,” where are the Wavelengths when I am dreaming?
Am I close?
ETA2: Further thoughts on perceiving redness: If you were never able to perceive wavelengths that correlate to redness, would you know redness? If your eyes were damaged to stop seeing red you would probably continue to dream with red. But if you have never seen red, would you dream in red? This is relevant to discovering the source of redness in non-wavelength related experiences which is slightly different than the question, “Where is the color?”
ETA2: Further thoughts on perceiving redness: If you were never able to perceive wavelengths that correlate to redness, would you know redness? If your eyes were damaged to stop seeing red you would probably continue to dream with red. But if you have never seen red, would you dream in red? This is relevant to discovering the source of redness in non-wavelength related experiences which is slightly different than the question, “Where is the color?”
I wish they had a better description of that. I’m synesthetic, with normal color vision, but sometimes get sensations of colors that seem impossible to experience. ‘A kind of greenish-purple’, for example—no, I don’t mean blue, and it’s not a purple pattern with green bits, it’s green and purple at the same time.
I also get ‘colors’ that make even less sense. For example, I’ll occasionally get a color that ‘looks’ grey but doesn’t ‘feel’ grey; it feels like it should have a separate label, and my mind refuses to categorize the stimulus with things that evoke ‘truly grey’ reactions. That makes me wonder if I’m experiencing the same effect as the one mentioned in the article.
That’s incredibly interesting—I recall that the article mentioned colorsighted synesthetes observing synesthetic colors that felt different from similar real colors, without going into any particular detail.
I don’t know how much more detail could be given, really. I don’t think I can do any better job of describing it than I just did, and I like to think I’m pretty good at that kind of thing.
This is true—and from a heterophenomenological standpoint, I don’t see that more needs to be said. Your remarks were perfectly clear despite their brevity.
From the article linked (synesthete is a keyword explained in the article):
They found a synesthete who was color blind. That may seem strange, but what it really means is that the subject had problems with his retina that left him able to distinguish only an extremely narrow range of wavelengths when looking at most images in the world — his brain was fine, but his eyes weren’t quite up to the job. But when he saw certain numbers, he experienced colors that he otherwise never saw.
And that, I guess, answers that question. Awesome.
I voted this comment up, because I too do not see how the root comment isn’t an answer and I’d really like to know why the OP doesn’t think it is an answer.
I don’t understand what he means when he says:
And all there is in the brain, according to standard physics, is a bunch of particles in various changing configurations. So: where’s the blue? What is the blue thing?
IT seems like the first sentence answer the questions asked.
There is also the fact that what we describe as “redness” is purely by virtue or our anatomy and the ranges at which our eyes’ structure receives the light that is then interpreted by our brain as red or blue.
Red, or Blue are just words that we used to describe a state that exists in the universe. What would happen to these colors if our eyes were made of a type of structure that picked up EM radiation all the way from gamma-rays to long-wavelength radio waves?
What “color” would we think something in the Microwave spectrum was? What about the X-Ray Colored objects?
Since we can presumably generate the appropriate signals in the optic nerve from scratch if we choose, light and its wavelength have nothing whatsoever to do with color.
Downvoted for strange non sequitur. We could theoretically pipe in the appropriate electrical impulses to the part of your brain responsible for auditory processing, but that doesn’t mean hearing has “nothing whatsoever” to do with sound.
The upvote was mine; I agree that ‘nothing whatsoever’ was too strong, but thought that the point about qualia observably having more to do with brainstates than the stimulii that evoke them was useful.
I don’t understand where this perceived confusion comes from (despite, or because, I read much of the relevant literature).
If we have an electronic device that emits light at 450THz and another that detects light and reports what “color” it is (red), then we can build/execute all of that without accounting for “redness” (except of course in the step where it decides what to call the “color”). Is there a problem here?
Is color a special topic here? Do we have the same issues in phenomenology of sound?
If we have an electronic device that outputs sound at 264.298 Hz and another that detects sound and reports the “musical note” (middle C) then we can build/execute all of that without reference to “middle C -ness”. Is this a problem?
I would like to see a better reply to this comment. Why doesn’t this address the problem of Color from the OP? Is it because the jump from wavelength to the label of “Blue” hasn’t been defined?
From the OP:
I’m not trying to be tricksy or smart. I am trying to understand the question and why the above isn’t an answer. In essence, all confusion would be lifted if you replaced the words “red” and “green” with something else in the following paragraph:
As in,
Words A, B, and C all belong to some category and that category is not “seen” in physics but is “seen” in reality. Thomblake is trying to use “wavelengths”:
This makes no sense to me, so something must be wrong in my translations. What is it?
Physics contains waves and physics contains lengths, so if someone were to say “physics contains wavelengths!”, I wouldn’t object, because I can see the wavelengths in the ontology of physics. But if someone says “physics contains colors”, I don’t see them and I have a problem; and if someone says “colors are wavelengths”, I also have a problem, because I don’t see what’s color-like about a wavelength. How does being 650 nanometers long make an object red?
Most people here aren’t saying red is a wavelength anyway. They’re saying red is an aspect of a brain state normally caused by light of a certain wavelength arriving at the eye. But the problem is the same, it’s just that the physical property supposedly identical with “being red” is far more complex and not completely specified.
Thank you for answering.
I guess my only response is that if you change the wavelength, its redness disappears. If you return the wavelength to the right frequency, redness returns. Similar experiments can be done for each color in turn.
Presumably, experiments can also be done to damage the eye so that it doesn’t respond to certain frequencies and the ability to perceive redness disappears.
Do these things imply some connection between redness and wavelengths? If not, than I feel I still am not understanding what you mean by Color. What is Color? Or is that the whole point of the question?
ETA: After thinking a little more, I may have gotten closer to understanding. The relationship between wavelengths and color may only go one way. Wavelengths may turn into Colors via the eye, but not every experience of a Color implies wavelengths hitting the eye. Examples of the latter are hallucinations and dreams. So the question remains, “Where is the color?” If the answer is “Wavelengths,” where are the Wavelengths when I am dreaming?
Am I close?
ETA2: Further thoughts on perceiving redness: If you were never able to perceive wavelengths that correlate to redness, would you know redness? If your eyes were damaged to stop seeing red you would probably continue to dream with red. But if you have never seen red, would you dream in red? This is relevant to discovering the source of redness in non-wavelength related experiences which is slightly different than the question, “Where is the color?”
I don’t know if colorblind people dream in color, but colorblind synesthetes can experience colors their eyes don’t register.
I wish they had a better description of that. I’m synesthetic, with normal color vision, but sometimes get sensations of colors that seem impossible to experience. ‘A kind of greenish-purple’, for example—no, I don’t mean blue, and it’s not a purple pattern with green bits, it’s green and purple at the same time.
I also get ‘colors’ that make even less sense. For example, I’ll occasionally get a color that ‘looks’ grey but doesn’t ‘feel’ grey; it feels like it should have a separate label, and my mind refuses to categorize the stimulus with things that evoke ‘truly grey’ reactions. That makes me wonder if I’m experiencing the same effect as the one mentioned in the article.
All this makes me want to do is go find a way to hack eye hardware so I can experience the weird colors too...
Give it ~20 years and we will calculate the way to consistently hack your brain to experience the weird colors and other synesthetic sensations.
That’s incredibly interesting—I recall that the article mentioned colorsighted synesthetes observing synesthetic colors that felt different from similar real colors, without going into any particular detail.
I don’t know how much more detail could be given, really. I don’t think I can do any better job of describing it than I just did, and I like to think I’m pretty good at that kind of thing.
This is true—and from a heterophenomenological standpoint, I don’t see that more needs to be said. Your remarks were perfectly clear despite their brevity.
From the article linked (synesthete is a keyword explained in the article):
And that, I guess, answers that question. Awesome.
I voted this comment up, because I too do not see how the root comment isn’t an answer and I’d really like to know why the OP doesn’t think it is an answer.
I don’t understand what he means when he says:
IT seems like the first sentence answer the questions asked.
There is also the fact that what we describe as “redness” is purely by virtue or our anatomy and the ranges at which our eyes’ structure receives the light that is then interpreted by our brain as red or blue.
Red, or Blue are just words that we used to describe a state that exists in the universe. What would happen to these colors if our eyes were made of a type of structure that picked up EM radiation all the way from gamma-rays to long-wavelength radio waves?
What “color” would we think something in the Microwave spectrum was? What about the X-Ray Colored objects?
FYI: Unlike electronic devices, your visual system doesn’t detect absolute color, hence these illusions.
Indeed. But one wouldn’t want to suggest anything mysterious is responsible.
Since we can presumably generate the appropriate signals in the optic nerve from scratch if we choose, light and its wavelength have nothing whatsoever to do with color.
Downvoted for strange non sequitur. We could theoretically pipe in the appropriate electrical impulses to the part of your brain responsible for auditory processing, but that doesn’t mean hearing has “nothing whatsoever” to do with sound.
The upvote was mine; I agree that ‘nothing whatsoever’ was too strong, but thought that the point about qualia observably having more to do with brainstates than the stimulii that evoke them was useful.