Is Prayer Ethical?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Sorry I got the wrong end of the stick.

No sweat, it's understandable in the context of the thread.

[Cavebear]

Maybe I'm a just a goodie two shoes and am just projecting, but don't decent, reasonable people feel it is our RESPONSIBILITY do what they can to try and make the world a better place for one and all (eg: by not having an enormous carbon footprint, putting out the recycling, voting with our conscience etc etc etc)?

You are not going to convince everyone. You're just not! When in human history has 100% of the population agreed on anything? Like, literally anything? There are dipshits who think the earth is flat for fuck's sake. I'm sure we have dipshits who think the sky is green, and the grass is blue.

If you can get a sizable chunk of the population to agree and we can get shit done, then don't worry about the nut cakes until they become an actual problem. In fact, paying them any mind at all empowers them.

Actually color is all in our minds and you can't prove what I see as "green" is what you see as "red". But we learn the names of colors we see in common. Whatever color you (in your mind) when you actually see "grass" is defined as green. But what we imagine in our minds can be very different.

[Cavebear]

Sorry I got the wrong end of the stick.

No sweat, it's understandable in the context of the thread.

I get by pretty well with Bill Maher.

[pattylt]

You are not going to convince everyone. You're just not! When in human history has 100% of the population agreed on anything? Like, literally anything? There are dipshits who think the earth is flat for fuck's sake. I'm sure we have dipshits who think the sky is green, and the grass is blue.

If you can get a sizable chunk of the population to agree and we can get shit done, then don't worry about the nut cakes until they become an actual problem. In fact, paying them any mind at all empowers them.

Actually color is all in our minds and you can't prove what I see as "green" is what you see as "red". But we learn the names of colors we see in common.  Whatever color you (in your mind) when you actually see "grass" is defined as green.  But what we imagine in our minds can be very different.

Doesn’t each color have a defined spectrum and we can ask each person what color they perceive at any point on that spectrum?  I guess each person might perceive it differently in their minds but they all agree on the point on the spectrum?  Wouldn’t those with green/blue color blindness also make the point we all see it the same?

I understand your point but I’m not sure I agree.

[Cavebear]

Actually color is all in our minds and you can't prove what I see as "green" is what you see as "red". But we learn the names of colors we see in common.  Whatever color you (in your mind) when you actually see "grass" is defined as green.  But what we imagine in our minds can be very different.

Doesn’t each color have a defined spectrum and we can ask each person what color they perceive at any point on that spectrum?  I guess each person might perceive it differently in their minds but they all agree on the point on the spectrum?  Wouldn’t those with green/blue color blindness also make the point we all see it the same?

I understand your point but I’m not sure I agree.

Color is all in the mind. We know that we call the color of grass "green", but we cant really know how each other "pictures it" internally. Color perception is entirely an internal thought.

[Inkubus]

A philosopher expounding on Qualia in 3-2-1

[pattylt]

Doesn’t each color have a defined spectrum and we can ask each person what color they perceive at any point on that spectrum?  I guess each person might perceive it differently in their minds but they all agree on the point on the spectrum?  Wouldn’t those with green/blue color blindness also make the point we all see it the same?

I understand your point but I’m not sure I agree.

Color is all in the mind.  We know that we call the color of grass "green", but we cant really know how each other "pictures it" internally.  Color perception is entirely an internal thought.

Ok….i guess even our rods and cones in our eyes are interpreted via our brain.  All of reality is, too.  Do trees look the same to you and me?  I guess it’s one of those questions we’ll never know and just have to assume?

[brewerb]

You are not going to convince everyone. You're just not! When in human history has 100% of the population agreed on anything? Like, literally anything? There are dipshits who think the earth is flat for fuck's sake. I'm sure we have dipshits who think the sky is green, and the grass is blue.

If you can get a sizable chunk of the population to agree and we can get shit done, then don't worry about the nut cakes until they become an actual problem. In fact, paying them any mind at all empowers them.

Actually color is all in our minds and you can't prove what I see as "green" is what you see as "red". But we learn the names of colors we see in common.  Whatever color you (in your mind) when you actually see "grass" is defined as green.  But what we imagine in our minds can be very different.

Consider this.

[Cavebear]

Actually color is all in our minds and you can't prove what I see as "green" is what you see as "red". But we learn the names of colors we see in common.  Whatever color you (in your mind) when you actually see "grass" is defined as green.  But what we imagine in our minds can be very different.

Consider this.

Its not what we see as color; it's what we picture a color as in our minds. We learn the names of colors culturally. So whatever we picture grass as, we name "green". But what we picture in our minds as "green" may not be the same. Light frequency is one thing; our internal internal representation on how we imagine that frequency is an altogether different matter. Internal interpretation of color is strictly a brain thing.

And the ability to detect particular light frequencies is yet a 3rd thing (regarding "color blindness";which I don't have).

[Thumpalumpacus]

Color perception is entirely an internal thought.

Wavelength frequencies, however, are not. Individual perceptions may be compared to population perceptions to assess color-blindness. Nature does this itself, insofar as yellow-against black is interpreted as a danger sign (bees, rattlesnakes, venomous frogs). Enough that non-venomous animals have evolved colorations to mimic this warning sign.

In other words, internal perceptions can be and are reinforced by evolution; color-blind mutations are in the minority probably because they are a less-accurate representation of reality.

Perceptions -- your word -- are inherently subjective. Reality, however, is objective.

[brewerb]

Consider this.

Its not what we see as color; it's what we picture a color as in our minds.  We learn the names of colors culturally.  So whatever we picture grass as, we name "green".  But what we picture in our minds as "green" may not be the same.  Light frequency is one thing; our internal internal representation on how we imagine that frequency is an altogether different matter.  Internal interpretation of color is strictly a brain thing.

And the ability to detect particular light frequencies is yet a 3rd thing (regarding "color blindness";which I don't have).

When a non colorblind person looks at the test pattern they see primarily what most would consider red with a green W. The colorblind person would only see red. Grass can be both green and brown. Once explained they know that they don't see colors the same as the general population, they don't see the W, even when the test givers trace it. That is independent of culture, independent of the brain. It is a genetic defect in the eye, not the brain. 

Why do you think they sell glasses to correct for some forms of colorblindness? Once the glasses are on it changes the brains representation because they are now seeing the spectrum colors that most see. 

I don't care if you're color blind or not but I question your ability to understand.

[mordant]

But what about the "absolves responsibility" implication of prayer? To illustrate, a couple of Jehovah's Witnesses knocked on my door a few years ago and I said I was concerned about global warming. One of them replied "that's the beauty of it, we don't need to worry about stuff like that because God's in control!" Fuck. That. Jazz.

*shrugs*

So a couple of Jehovah's Winesses think prayer is a viable solution. So what? There's a reason their movement remains so small.

There are 8.6 million of them -- enough that the long since had to abandon the doctrine that there were 144,000 chosen by god.

But yes in the face of billions of people worldwide, they are small.

My greater concern is that there are plenty of non-JWs who also fail to act because they think God would never allow climate catastrophe and bazillions more who essentially just think climate climate change is caused by negative thinking and will go away if we quit talking about it. So the general "what, me worry?" vibe is the real problem; religion is just a catalyst for it.

[Cavebear]

Color perception is entirely an internal thought.

Wavelength frequencies, however, are not. Individual perceptions may be compared to population perceptions to assess color-blindness. Nature does this itself, insofar as yellow-against black is interpreted as a danger sign (bees, rattlesnakes, venomous frogs). Enough that non-venomous animals have evolved colorations to mimic this warning sign.

In other words, internal perceptions can be and are reinforced by evolution; color-blind mutations are in the minority probably because they are a less-accurate representation of reality.

Perceptions -- your word -- are inherently subjective. Reality, however, is objective.

I have to respectfully disagree with you. According to your explanation, we should see colors for all light frequencies. We do not. Our eyes have evolved to detect certain light frequencies most useful to our environmental needs. Some animals detect fewer, some detect ones we do not. While we call that "visible light", the range of frequencies that some others detect is UV or IR. We don't, because that information is not as useful to us.

I'll explain more about color perception if I can (apologies if I repeat parts). Light itself has no actual color. We perceive color from light frequencies internally.

"Color is a function of the human visual system, and is not an intrinsic property. Objects don't have a color, they give off light that appears to be a color. Spectral power distributions exist in the physical world, but color exists only in the mind of the beholder. Our perception of color is not an objective measure of anything about the light that enters our eyes, but it correlates pretty well with objective reality." From https://physics.info/color/.

Once light strikes eye receptors, a signal is passed on to the occipital lobe. That's where our neurocognition turns light frequencies into what we intrernalize and interpret as "color". The eye detects light frequencies, the brain converts those to a useful perceptions, i.e "color.

Think of sound. Sounds have no objective meaning. They are just vibrations in the air that our ears detect. We learn that some vibrations have informational meaning. The air vibrations of the purr of a cat are not dangerous. The air vibrations of an explosion are. Our brain learns the difference as we grow in experience with them.

It is the same for light. This may be a helpful explanation (and maybe the best I found today)... S. K. Palmer, a leading psychologist and cognitive scientist, writes:

"People universally believe that objects look colored because they are colored, just as we experience them. The sky looks blue because it is blue, grass looks green because it is green, and blood looks red because it is red. As surprising as it may seem, these beliefs are fundamentally mistaken. Neither objects nor lights are actually ‘colored’ in anything like the way we experience them. Rather, color is a psychological property of our visual experiences when we look at objects and lights, not a physical property of those objects or lights. "

I hope this explains better what I originally posted.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Wavelength frequencies, however, are not. Individual perceptions may be compared to population perceptions to assess color-blindness. Nature does this itself, insofar as yellow-against black is interpreted as a danger sign (bees, rattlesnakes, venomous frogs). Enough that non-venomous animals have evolved colorations to mimic this warning sign.

In other words, internal perceptions can be and are reinforced by evolution; color-blind mutations are in the minority probably because they are a less-accurate representation of reality.

Perceptions -- your word -- are inherently subjective. Reality, however, is objective.

I have to respectfully disagree with you.  According to your explanation, we should see colors for all light frequencies.  We do not.  Our eyes have evolved to detect certain light frequencies most useful to our environmental needs.  Some animals detect fewer, some detect ones we do not.  While we call that "visible light", the range of frequencies that some others detect is UV or IR.  We don't, because that information is not as useful to us.

I'll explain more about color perception if I can (apologies if I repeat parts).  Light itself has no actual color.  We perceive color from light frequencies internally.

"Color is a function of the human visual system, and is not an intrinsic property. Objects don't have a color, they give off light that appears to be a color. Spectral power distributions exist in the physical world, but color exists only in the mind of the beholder. Our perception of color is not an objective measure of anything about the light that enters our eyes, but it correlates pretty well with objective reality."  From https://physics.info/color/.

Once light strikes eye receptors, a signal is passed on to the occipital lobe.  That's where our neurocognition turns light frequencies into what we intrernalize and interpret as "color".  The eye detects light frequencies, the brain converts those to a useful perceptions, i.e "color.

Think of sound.  Sounds have no objective meaning.  They are just vibrations in the air that our ears detect.  We learn that some vibrations have informational meaning.  The air vibrations of the purr of a cat are not dangerous.  The air vibrations of an explosion are.  Our brain learns the difference as we grow in experience with them.

It is the same for light.  This may be a helpful explanation (and maybe the best I found today)...  S. K. Palmer, a leading psychologist and cognitive scientist, writes:

"People universally believe that objects look colored because they are colored, just as we experience them. The sky looks blue because it is blue, grass looks green because it is green, and blood looks red because it is red. As surprising as it may seem, these beliefs are fundamentally mistaken. Neither objects nor lights are actually ‘colored’ in anything like the way we experience them. Rather, color is a psychological property of our visual experiences when we look at objects and lights, not a physical property of those objects or lights. "

I hope this explains better what I originally posted.

Again, you're missing the divide between objective and subjective. Objects do not have intrinsic colors -- which do indeed exist inside our minds -- , but they do inherently, physically, and objectively reflect or absorb particular bandwidths, which we define as 'red", "green", "blue" and so on. We say someone is color-blind when someone does not see those wavelengths the same as the vast majority of humans. That's because colors are subjective.

Radiation is not subjective. Perception is.

[Cavebear]

Its not what we see as color; it's what we picture a color as in our minds.  We learn the names of colors culturally.  So whatever we picture grass as, we name "green".  But what we picture in our minds as "green" may not be the same.  Light frequency is one thing; our internal internal representation on how we imagine that frequency is an altogether different matter.  Internal interpretation of color is strictly a brain thing.

And the ability to detect particular light frequencies is yet a 3rd thing (regarding "color blindness";which I don't have).

When a non colorblind person looks at the test pattern they see primarily what most would consider red with a green W. The colorblind person would only see red. Grass can be both green and brown. Once explained they know that they don't see colors the same as the general population, they don't see the W, even when the test givers trace it. That is independent of culture, independent of the brain. It is a genetic defect in the eye, not the brain. 

Why do you think they sell glasses to correct for some forms of colorblindness? Once the glasses are on it changes the brains representation because they are now seeing the spectrum colors that most see. 

I don't care if you're color blind or not but I question your ability to understand.

I certainly wasn't questioning the existence of color-blindness! It is real and causes considerable difficulties to some people. I didn't know there were glasses to at least partially correct that, but I am glad to be told of that.

I consider my self very fortunate to have good color vision. I can't quite image not having a full range of color vision. I have looked at a few sites that show how cats and dogs see color and I suppose that is close to color-blindness in humans. It must be difficult. And I had a supervisor who had no depth-perception which gave him a lot of trouble. The weaknesses and failures of the body are many and varied.

But I wasn't "criticizing" color-blindness in any way.

[Cavebear]

I have to respectfully disagree with you.  According to your explanation, we should see colors for all light frequencies.  We do not.  Our eyes have evolved to detect certain light frequencies most useful to our environmental needs.  Some animals detect fewer, some detect ones we do not.  While we call that "visible light", the range of frequencies that some others detect is UV or IR.  We don't, because that information is not as useful to us.

I'll explain more about color perception if I can (apologies if I repeat parts).  Light itself has no actual color.  We perceive color from light frequencies internally.

"Color is a function of the human visual system, and is not an intrinsic property. Objects don't have a color, they give off light that appears to be a color. Spectral power distributions exist in the physical world, but color exists only in the mind of the beholder. Our perception of color is not an objective measure of anything about the light that enters our eyes, but it correlates pretty well with objective reality."  From https://physics.info/color/.

Once light strikes eye receptors, a signal is passed on to the occipital lobe.  That's where our neurocognition turns light frequencies into what we intrernalize and interpret as "color".  The eye detects light frequencies, the brain converts those to a useful perceptions, i.e "color.

Think of sound.  Sounds have no objective meaning.  They are just vibrations in the air that our ears detect.  We learn that some vibrations have informational meaning.  The air vibrations of the purr of a cat are not dangerous.  The air vibrations of an explosion are.  Our brain learns the difference as we grow in experience with them.

It is the same for light.  This may be a helpful explanation (and maybe the best I found today)...  S. K. Palmer, a leading psychologist and cognitive scientist, writes:

"People universally believe that objects look colored because they are colored, just as we experience them. The sky looks blue because it is blue, grass looks green because it is green, and blood looks red because it is red. As surprising as it may seem, these beliefs are fundamentally mistaken. Neither objects nor lights are actually ‘colored’ in anything like the way we experience them. Rather, color is a psychological property of our visual experiences when we look at objects and lights, not a physical property of those objects or lights. "

I hope this explains better what I originally posted.

Again, you're missing the divide between objective and subjective. Objects do not have intrinsic colors -- which do indeed exist inside our minds -- , but they do inherently, physically, and objectively reflect or absorb particular bandwidths, which we define as 'red", "green", "blue" and so on. We say someone is color-blind when someone does not see those wavelengths the same as the vast majority of humans. That's because colors are subjective.

Radiation is not subjective. Perception is.

ARRGGGH! OK, we are discussing slightly different things here. I'm glad for your 2nd and your last sentences, which agrees with my understanding and we have no further disagreements there I think.

As to the rest... I agree with what you are currently saying about our perceived colors of objects and never said otherwise. That was practically the whole point of my recent posts. How ignorant of science do you think I am, anyway? I fully understand that objects reflect the light frequencies they don't absorb. A red tulip looks red because it absorbs all the other colors and the denied light frequencies arrive to our eyes in the light frequency we define internally as "red". Because that when light strikes an object, it loses energy and re-emits at a lower frequency.

I understand all that. It's pretty basic.

[Thumpalumpacus]

ARRGGGH!  OK, we are discussing slightly different things here.  I'm glad for your 2nd and your last sentences, which agrees with my understanding and we have no further disagreements there I think.

As to the rest...  I agree with what you are currently saying about our perceived colors of objects and never said otherwise.  That was practically the whole point of my recent posts.  How ignorant of science do you think I am, anyway?  I fully understand that objects reflect the light frequencies they don't absorb.  A red tulip looks red because it absorbs all the other colors and the denied light frequencies arrive to our eyes in the light frequency we define internally as "red".  Because that when light strikes an object, it loses energy and re-emits at a lower frequency.  

I understand all that.  It's pretty basic.

Right, but my point is that qualia is not data. I'm not saying anything about your ignorance, so get off that. I'm saying that what we call the tulip's red is 1) a human definition, and 2) a function of the wavelengths reflected.

And a human being color-blind is a matter of retinal issues. That they may see red as grey doesn't change what frequencies the surface is absorbing. But if 95% of all people see grass as green -- if 95% see the letters in a color-blind test -- well, you can figure whose sight is normal and whose isn't.

The most common type of color vision deficiency makes it hard to tell the difference between red and green. Another type makes blue and yellow look the same. In rare cases, people have complete color vision deficiency, which means they don’t see color at all.

[...]

The main symptom of color vision deficiency is not seeing colors the way most people do.

[...]

Most people who have color vision deficiency are born with it. This is because the most common types of color vision deficiency are genetic, meaning they’re passed down from parents.

Color vision deficiency can also happen because of an injury to the retina (the light-sensitive layer of tissue in the back of the eye), the optic nerve (which connects the eye to the brain), or the brain itself.

https://www.nei.nih.gov/learn-about-eye-...20families.

[Cavebear]

ARRGGGH!  OK, we are discussing slightly different things here.  I'm glad for your 2nd and your last sentences, which agrees with my understanding and we have no further disagreements there I think.

As to the rest...  I agree with what you are currently saying about our perceived colors of objects and never said otherwise.  That was practically the whole point of my recent posts.  How ignorant of science do you think I am, anyway?  I fully understand that objects reflect the light frequencies they don't absorb.  A red tulip looks red because it absorbs all the other colors and the denied light frequencies arrive to our eyes in the light frequency we define internally as "red".  Because that when light strikes an object, it loses energy and re-emits at a lower frequency.  

I understand all that.  It's pretty basic.

Right, but my point is that qualia is not data. I'm not saying anything about your ignorance, so get off that. I'm saying that what we call the tulip's red is 1) a human definition, and 2) a function of the wavelengths reflected.

And a human being color-blind is a matter of retinal issues. That they may see red as grey doesn't change what frequencies the surface is absorbing. But if 95% of all people see grass as green -- if 95% see the letters in a color-blind test -- well, you can figure whose sight is normal and whose isn't.

The most common type of color vision deficiency makes it hard to tell the difference between red and green. Another type makes blue and yellow look the same. In rare cases, people have complete color vision deficiency, which means they don’t see color at all.

[...]

The main symptom of color vision deficiency is not seeing colors the way most people do.

[...]

Most people who have color vision deficiency are born with it. This is because the most common types of color vision deficiency are genetic, meaning they’re passed down from parents.

Color vision deficiency can also happen because of an injury to the retina (the light-sensitive layer of tissue in the back of the eye), the optic nerve (which connects the eye to the brain), or the brain itself.

https://www.nei.nih.gov/learn-about-eye-...20families.

Do you realize that you are actually agreeing with me now about "light vs color" when you initially didn't?

I know what color-blindness is. I know the causes are usually genetic but can be caused for other reasons. This is no surprise to me.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Do you realize that you are actually agreeing with me now about "light vs color" when you initially didn't?  

Go back to my initial disagreement:

Color perception is entirely an internal thought.

Wavelength frequencies, however, are not. Individual perceptions may be compared to population perceptions to assess color-blindness. Nature does this itself, insofar as yellow-against black is interpreted as a danger sign (bees, rattlesnakes, venomous frogs). Enough that non-venomous animals have evolved colorations to mimic this warning sign.

In other words, internal perceptions can be and are reinforced by evolution; color-blind mutations are in the minority probably because they are a less-accurate representation of reality.

Perceptions -- your word -- are inherently subjective. Reality, however, is objective.

What I was, and am, saying is that there's nuance you failed to mention. I wasn't "disagreeing" with you so much as I was filling in the large gaps you were leaving.

This isn't an argument. You won't get anything for "winning". You don't have to be a putz. That you choose to says more about you than anyone else.

[brewerb]

Some people have an issue with admitting they are incorrect.

Stop looking at me..............

god damnit..........

you're wrong!

[Rhythmcs]

Color being all in the mind is a hyperbolic statement meant to advance a particular view on qualia, but it's not..strictly speaking.... a true statement. Even in our own case, color exists in at least three places, only one of which being our mind...then..ofc..there are all sorts of things which have no mind that we can discern but still respond to color...like it existed...or something.

Sound, largely the same...and I think I see a possible disconnect - when we insist that sound has no objective meaning. That may be true, I never know exactly what people are talking about when they say that, but even if so, it's clear that both sound and color have objective existence. As creatures of meaning, we have a tendency to conflate the two, perceiving a defect in the one as a defect in the other.

[Cavebear]

Color being all in the mind is a hyperbolic statement meant to advance a particular view on qualia, but it's not..strictly speaking.... a true statement.  Even in our own case, color exists in at least three places, only one of which being our mind...then..ofc..there are all sorts of things which have no mind that we can discern but still respond to color...like it existed...or something.

Sound, largely the same...and I think I see a possible disconnect - when we insist that sound has no objective meaning.  That may be true, I never know exactly what people are talking about when they say that, but even if so, it's clear that both sound and color have objective existence.  As creatures of meaning, we have a tendency to conflate the two, perceiving a defect in the one as a defect in the other.

OK, first, why do you think sound has an objective meaning. It is just fluctuations of air pressures hitting our ears. The interpretation of the meanings of those sounds is entirely a very useful function of our minds, but the vibrations themselves have no inherent meaning. If that was true, I suppose we would all understand all languages. The air vibrations therefore have no inherent meaning.

Second, light is like that. There are frequencies of light. Some, we have evolved to register in our eyes. Light frequencies are just energy levels. Those our current eyes can detect, we call "visible light". Higher and lower levels of light-frequencies are not what we are evolved to see. Because those higher or lower frequencies do not give us any natural selection advantage. Some animals do detect some slightly higher or lower light frequencies.

A bee finds an advantage in seeing in UV because flowers are evolved to reflect UV as a target for pollinators. It is a mutual coevlovement. We humans do not see a flower the same way. We have bo great advatage to detecting the details of flower that has evolved to attract bees. But the bee has evolved to input light frequencies reflected from plants that its brain can interpret as guidance to a plants nectar and pollen.

But we see the same flower differently. We see an open daisy differently. The bee sees rays of color leading to the nectar. We just see a non-rayed flower. We are both seeing that same object, but we see it in different ways. So the color perception is clearly an internal interpretation.

You mentioned "color exists in at least three places, only one of which being our mind". Would you please describe the other two? I suspect what you think one is, but I can't think of the third.

[Cavebear]

Do you realize that you are actually agreeing with me now about "light vs color" when you initially didn't?  

Go back to my initial disagreement:

Wavelength frequencies, however, are not. Individual perceptions may be compared to population perceptions to assess color-blindness. Nature does this itself, insofar as yellow-against black is interpreted as a danger sign (bees, rattlesnakes, venomous frogs). Enough that non-venomous animals have evolved colorations to mimic this warning sign.

In other words, internal perceptions can be and are reinforced by evolution; color-blind mutations are in the minority probably because they are a less-accurate representation of reality.

Perceptions -- your word -- are inherently subjective. Reality, however, is objective.

What I was, and am, saying is that there's nuance you failed to mention.  I wasn't "disagreeing" with you so much as I was filling in the large gaps you were leaving.

This isn't an argument. You won't get anything for "winning". You don't have to be a putz. That you choose to says more about you than anyone else.

Thank you for the reply. Indeed, this isn't actually an argument. I'm not here to "win" anything. I discuss science/evolution/religion/politics sometimes and I provide legitimate sources for most statements. OK, sometimes not. I don't think I have to source F=MA, for example. There are some things I am sufficiently familiar with to just state.

Color perception is one of those I didn't think needed to be sourced. Light carries no actual color itself; it is just frequencies. It is just how we interpret light frequencies in the limited way our eyes can detect. The idea of objects having inherent color went out when scientists realized that the color of objects is only that of the light frequencies they don't absorb.

"Color is a ubiquitous feature of our psychological experience. The human visual system constructs a perceptual experience of color from wavelengths of light reflected or emitted from the objects and surfaces around us" HERE

Further, from the same site: "Color vision is the basic sensory process that underpins color perception and cognition. It is defined as the ability to discriminate the wavelengths of light reflected from surfaces on the basis of hue". Hue is not important to this discussion, but I wanted to include the full quote.

So "color" is only what our brains interpret from the light frequencies objects do not absorb and are reflected back to us (and at a slightly lower frequency).

"Color" is just how we internally, and only in our minds interpret some frequencies of light.

Is this enough to help you understand what I've been trying to say?

I look forward to any questions and replies from you or anyone.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Go back to my initial disagreement:


What I was, and am, saying is that there's nuance you failed to mention.  I wasn't "disagreeing" with you so much as I was filling in the large gaps you were leaving.

This isn't an argument. You won't get anything for "winning". You don't have to be a putz. That you choose to says more about you than anyone else.

Thank you for the reply.  Indeed, this isn't actually an argument.  I'm not here to "win" anything.  I discuss science/evolution/religion/politics sometimes and I provide legitimate sources for most statements.  OK, sometimes not.  I don't think I have to source F=MA, for example.  There are some things I am sufficiently familiar with to just state.

Color perception is one of those I didn't think needed to be sourced.  Light carries no actual color itself; it is just frequencies.  It is just how we interpret light frequencies in the limited way our eyes can detect.  The idea of objects having inherent color went out when scientists realized that the color of objects is only that of the light frequencies they don't absorb.

"Color is a ubiquitous feature of our psychological experience. The human visual system constructs a perceptual experience of color from wavelengths of light reflected or emitted from the objects and surfaces around us"  HERE

Further, from the same site:  "Color vision is the basic sensory process that underpins color perception and cognition. It is defined as the ability to discriminate the wavelengths of light reflected from surfaces on the basis of hue".  Hue is not important to this discussion, but I wanted to include the full quote.

So  "color" is only what our brains interpret from the light frequencies objects do not absorb and are reflected back to us (and at a slightly lower frequency).

"Color" is just how we internally, and only in our minds interpret some frequencies of light.

Is this enough to help you understand what I've been trying to say?

I look forward to any questions and replies from you or anyone.

[Cavebear]

Thank you for the reply.  Indeed, this isn't actually an argument.  I'm not here to "win" anything.  I discuss science/evolution/religion/politics sometimes and I provide legitimate sources for most statements.  OK, sometimes not.  I don't think I have to source F=MA, for example.  There are some things I am sufficiently familiar with to just state.

Color perception is one of those I didn't think needed to be sourced.  Light carries no actual color itself; it is just frequencies.  It is just how we interpret light frequencies in the limited way our eyes can detect.  The idea of objects having inherent color went out when scientists realized that the color of objects is only that of the light frequencies they don't absorb.

"Color is a ubiquitous feature of our psychological experience. The human visual system constructs a perceptual experience of color from wavelengths of light reflected or emitted from the objects and surfaces around us"  HERE

Further, from the same site:  "Color vision is the basic sensory process that underpins color perception and cognition. It is defined as the ability to discriminate the wavelengths of light reflected from surfaces on the basis of hue".  Hue is not important to this discussion, but I wanted to include the full quote.

So  "color" is only what our brains interpret from the light frequencies objects do not absorb and are reflected back to us (and at a slightly lower frequency).

"Color" is just how we internally, and only in our minds interpret some frequencies of light.

Is this enough to help you understand what I've been trying to say?

I look forward to any questions and replies from you or anyone.

I suppose that is "Captain Obvious".

But I'm not sure you actually agree with me, since you disagreed previously. It's not like I saw a rave review of my posts on color perception. Still, I'll take that as a "qualified maybe".