Light: visible or invisible?

[beecee]

56 minutes ago, beecee said:

Black is the absence of colour.....Orange is a result of the reflective properties of the object, both of course depending on what part of the EMS, or lack thereof, that is falling on that object. The orange in the dark room [ or where there is no visible part of the EMS] therefor has no colour or is black, and its properties to absorb and/or reflect are not in question, and are simply  "inoperable" [for want of a better word] in such circumstances.

Let me attempt to illustrate further......If for example  we welcomed to Earth, an emissary Alien from the planet Proxima Centauri, where Oranges or any fruit for that matter are unknown, and we put our Centaurian in a room with no EMR at all,and dropped an Orange into his hand. Could he tell us what colour it was, as a result of the reflective/absorption properties of that Orange? Let's say now we turn on a light that emitted EMR at the blue wavelength of the EMS...our Alien Centaurian would actually then see a brown Orange.

I believe the belief that an Orange is orange in any condition of lighting or lack thereof, is an example of what I call "intuitiveness bias" Obviously we all know under normal conditions on planet Earth, under normal light, an Orange is orange....no question about it. But altering those normal lighting conditions, or removing the lighting, and it is easily seen I believe, that the colour or lack thereof of any object depends in the first instance on that precise EMS or lack of it.

 

[Furyan5]

56 minutes ago, beecee said:

Let me attempt to illustrate further......If for example  we welcomed to Earth, an emissary Alien from the planet Proxima Centauri, where Oranges or any fruit for that matter are unknown, and we put our Centaurian in a room with no EMR at all,and dropped an Orange into his hand. Could he tell us what colour it was, as a result of the reflective/absorption properties of that Orange? Let's say now we turn on a light that emitted EMR at the blue wavelength of the EMS...our Alien Centaurian would actually then see a brown Orange.

I believe the belief that an Orange is orange in any condition of lighting or lack thereof, is an example of what I call "intuitiveness bias" Obviously we all know under normal conditions on planet Earth, under normal light, an Orange is orange....no question about it. But altering those normal lighting conditions, or removing the lighting, and it is easily seen I believe, that the colour or lack thereof of any object depends in the first instance on that precise EMS or lack of it.

 

So let me get this straight. You believe the light has color?

[John Cuthber]

18 minutes ago, Furyan5 said:

So let me get this straight. You believe the light has color?

Something plainly has. And it must be something which reaches your eye in order that you can make an observation of that colour.

What would you suggest?

[koti]

22 minutes ago, Furyan5 said:

So let me get this straight. You believe the light has color?

Its not a question of belief, its well established fact that different wavelenghts of light represent different colors. ~700nm is deep red, ~630nm is orange, ~550nm is green and down at the bottom of the visual spectrum we have violet at ~400nm. Billions of colors can be distinguished by a healthy human within the visual spectrum, each of them having a different wavelenght. 

Edited March 11, 2018 by koti

[Furyan5]

1 minute ago, John Cuthber said:

Something plainly has. And it must be something which reaches your eye in order that you can make an observation of that colour.

What would you suggest?

How about neuroscientific fact from this century? 

When the eyes detect light patterns, they send electrochemical impulses to the brains visual cortex where the brain creates a visual representation of the outside world. The objects you see are not outside your body. They are simulations created by our brain. Only the objects in our simulated reality have 'color' hue. 

[John Cuthber]

If colour only exists in the brain, without any independent meaning, how come we  agree on what colour an orange is?

 

 

[Furyan5]

8 minutes ago, koti said:

Its not a question of belief, its well established fact that different wavelenghts of light represent different colors. ~700nm is deep red, ~630nm is orange, ~550nm is green and down at the bottom of the visual spectrum we have violet at ~400nm. Billions of colors can be distinguished by a healthy human within the visual spectrum, each of them having a different wavelenght. 

Please educate yourself. This is high school stuff.https://kids.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/frym.2013.00010 

[koti]

Just now, John Cuthber said:

If colour only exists in the brain, without any independent meaning, how come we  agree on what colour an orange is?

 

 

To be fair, we don’t. Color perception is personal and everybody sees a different „orange” based on previous experiences and various other factors. But that does not contribute to the fact that we see light and that light has color. 

[Furyan5]

4 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

If colour only exists in the brain, without any independent meaning, how come we  agree on what colour an orange is?

 

 

We're taught to call that specific color a certain name. We don't actually know whether we see the same color.

[koti]

1 minute ago, Furyan5 said:

Please educate yourself. This is high school stuff.https://kids.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/frym.2013.00010 

You are welcome to present your highschool level data on neuroscientific aproaches to color perception in a different thread. This is physics and different wavelenghts of light represent different colors like I pointed out in my post above - this actually is highschool level data. 

[Furyan5]

3 minutes ago, koti said:

To be fair, we don’t. Color perception is personal and everybody sees a different „orange” based on previous experiences and various other factors. But that does not contribute to the fact that we see light and that light has color. 

Light (EMR) is noumenal. Color is phenomenal. We can't 'see' noumenal things. 

1 minute ago, koti said:

You are welcome to present your highschool level data on neuroscientific aproaches to color perception in a different thread. This is physics and different wavelenghts of light represent different colors like I pointed out in my post above - this actually is highschool level data. 

If light had color, we would see Orange light radiating from the Orange in all directions. 

[koti]

1 minute ago, Furyan5 said:

Light (EMR) is noumenal. Color is phenomenal. We can't 'see' noumenal things. 

What?! You’re dragging in Kant and metaphysics into this thread now? 

5 minutes ago, Furyan5 said:

If light had color, we would see Orange light radiating from the Orange in all directions. 

What? 

[Furyan5]

10 minutes ago, koti said:

What?! You’re dragging in Kant and metaphysics into this thread now? 

What? 

If light had color, wouldn't you see Orange light radiating away from an orange in all directions?

Why is only the light coming towards you orange?

[beecee]

52 minutes ago, Furyan5 said:

So let me get this straight. You believe the light has color?

I'm saying that certain parts of the EMS, that is visible to the eye, is interpreted as a specific colour. If there is no EMS for the eye to interpret, there is no colour and we see blackness.  If the EMS is specifically at another wavelength, the eye will interpret that differently. I believe that was pretty clear in my previous post.

[koti]

1 minute ago, Furyan5 said:

If light had color, wouldn't you see Orange light radiating away from an orange in all directions?

An orange does not radiate anything unless it spent time in proximity of something radio active. An orange reflects light which we perceive as ~630nm color we call „orange”

[Furyan5]

3 minutes ago, koti said:

An orange does not radiate anything unless it spent time in proximity of something radio active. An orange reflects light which we perceive as ~630nm color we call „orange”

I'm talking about an orange in direct sunlight. According to you, it reflects Orange light right?

[koti]

7 minutes ago, Furyan5 said:

I'm talking about an orange in direct sunlight. According to you, it reflects Orange light right?

 

11 minutes ago, koti said:

An orange does not radiate anything unless it spent time in proximity of something radio active. An orange reflects light which we perceive as ~630nm color we call „orange”

 

[Furyan5]

1 minute ago, koti said:

 

 

Wrong. Our eyes detect 630nm wavelength light and send electrochemical impulses to our brains visual cortex where our brain creates the sensation orange. Our eyes see nothing. They detect, they don't perceive. 

If 630nm light was orange, we would see it being reflected by the Orange in all directions.

I know it's hard to let go of a preconception. It blinds you to the truth.

28 minutes ago, beecee said:

I'm saying that certain parts of the EMS, that is visible to the eye, is interpreted as a specific colour. If there is no EMS for the eye to interpret, there is no colour and we see blackness.  If the EMS is specifically at another wavelength, the eye will interpret that differently. I believe that was pretty clear in my previous post.

The eye serves just one purpose. It converts light into an electrochemical signal. It doesn't interpret anything. It doesn't perceive anything. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3093457/Does-colour-exist-BRAIN-Book-argues-simply-construct-mind.html

[koti]

15 minutes ago, Furyan5 said:

Wrong. Our eyes detect 630nm wavelength light and send electrochemical impulses to our brains visual cortex where our brain creates the sensation orange. Our eyes see nothing. They detect, they don't perceive. 

If 630nm light was orange, we would see it being reflected by the Orange in all directions.

I know it's hard to let go of a preconception. It blinds you to the truth.

The eye serves just one purpose. It converts light into an electrochemical signal. It doesn't interpret anything. It doesn't perceive anything. 

The only truth that comes from your post is the fact that you’ve been on this forum for about 4 months and you still haven’t mastered the subtle art of quoting someone. Oh, and nobody is saying that the eyes interpret anything. 

 

[Furyan5]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/illusory-color-andamp-the-brain-2008-05/

 

[studiot]

26 minutes ago, Furyan5 said:

Wrong. Our eyes detect 630nm wavelength light and send electrochemical impulses to our brains visual cortex where our brain creates the sensation orange. Our eyes see nothing. They detect, they don't perceive. 

 

A pity this conflicts with the' high school' explanation you posted a link to.

You also needed to introduce several new undefined words to offer your explanation.

sensation, detect, perceive.

Why are these better than Eise's see1 and see2?

 

There is also a logical difficulty with placing all the meaning of vision in the brain.

That is a non defective eye can only create a faithful retinal image of the received light with nothing added or taken away.

 

The brain both adds and subtract extraneous material to the image it creates.

 

I don't understand what you mean by reflecting orange light in all directions
Please explain.

 

 

 

Edited March 11, 2018 by studiot

[Furyan5]

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

A pity this conflicts with the' high school' explanation you posted a link to.

You also needed to introduce several new undefined words to offer your explanation.

sensation, detect, perceive.

Why are these better than Eise's see1 and see2?

 

There is also a logical difficulty with placing all the meaning of vision in the brain.

That is a non defective eye can only create a faithful retinal image of the received light with nothing added or taken away.

 

The brain both adds and subtract extraneous material to the image it creates.

 

I don't understand what you mean by reflecting orange light in all directions
Please explain.

 

 

 

Read the article again. It says exactly the same thing. Maybe you'll listen to a physicist.https://youtu.be/fQczp0wtZQQ

9 minutes ago, koti said:

The only truth that comes from your post is the fact that you’ve been on this forum for about 4 months and you still haven’t mastered the subtle art of quoting someone. Oh, and nobody is saying that the eyes interpret anything. 

 

Lol really? BeeCee says exactly that. Scroll up a bit. 

[studiot]

12 minutes ago, Furyan5 said:

tRead the article again. It says exactly the same thing. Maybe you'll listen to a physicist.

 

 

I did read the article and I liked it better than I thought I would.

Would you like me to extract and display the exact passage that conflicts with your absolute declaration that a colour corresponds to a single wavelength?

Don't patronise me, they were correct, you were wrong.

 

Please also answer my other questions/points.

 

Edited March 11, 2018 by studiot

[Furyan5]

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

 

I did read the article and I liked it better than I thought I would.

Would you like me to extract and display the exact passage that conflicts with your absolute declaration that a colour corresponds to a single wavelength?

Don't patronise me, they were correct, you were wrong.

 

Please also answer my other questions/points.

 

Yes, please show me where you see this contradiction? 

And ask one question at a time. 

[studiot]

9 minutes ago, Furyan5 said:

And ask one question at a time. 

If you can only respond to one point at a time why do you post multiple points in your posts.?

one question.

I'm sorry I can't respond to your second point (as requested) in your last post until we finish this one.

Edited March 11, 2018 by studiot