The range we've named "red" cause us to see red, but there is no red in the range.

Excellent.

The range we've named "red" cause us to see red, but there is no red in the range. — creativesoul

No. It causes (in general terms) the sensation we take to be caused by the range on the spectrum. That sensation is termed 'Red'. There is no red in the spectrum. Arguing that there is red in the spectrum is bizarre. If you're not doing so, I am not quite understanding the objection.

Also, if these several string-posts are in response to someone, I'm not seeing hte intermediary posts so sorry if anything is incoherent for that reason. If its just me, also sorry lmao.

There is no red in the spectrum. — AmadeusD

Not a Skittles fan, huh? Taste the rainbow, except the rainbow has no colors.

Just off the cuff absurd conclusions following from the idea that color is nothing more than a mental/psychological event.

My point about the scanner is that it cannot detect colour. — AmadeusD

It detects what we've named "red", despite not having mental events.

Not a Skittles fan, huh? Taste the rainbow, except the rainbow has no colors. — creativesoul

To me, nothing you've used to object to the position has any effect on it. You're, in all cases, bringing the mental phenomenon to a physical fight. The only reason a Red skittle is Red, is because my mind creates a red experience for me in response to a(in this case, a very specific) frequency of light reflected of a cooked sugar surface. It isn't in the Skittle. THat's, again, bizarre.

Just off the cuff absurd conclusions following from the idea that color is nothing more than a mental/psychological event. — creativesoul

Explanation: Nice, thank you
Relevance: None, unfortunately.

It detects what we've named "red" and programmed it to pick up on, based on the frequencies we have decided are the 'red' spectrum pursuant to the experience of Red. Nothing to do with with the frequencies themselves representing anything in experience — creativesoul

I'm also not entirely un-open to the idea that a machine could have 'mental events' in some form that delineates 'mentation' from 'consciousness'. There are bacteria who can react adequately to their environment (and show what would be considered unnatural coherence in those reactions) without any consciousness - but perhaps we have to give them mentation to make sense of it. Idk. It is distasteful to me, but I can't find a reason to just say "No, not that".

There is a further point, and all of your objections rely on it's facticity: the reality that we cannot point out Red without experiencing it. The only reason we could announce that a programme has 'created' Red is because the experience we have corresponds with what we call Red elsewhere. And this was programmed into the software based on the prexisting version of the same correspondence. It is all derived from experience.

There is no part of any of these discussions where colour obtains without experience. I get the feeling this is going to just end up with erroneous exchanges about language use.

"colour" formally, is the experience of (sorry, caused by, in most cases) such and such light frequency. — AmadeusD

How can I experience colour!? What if I never experienced red colour, and you asked me for a red pen? I would feel a big feeling of anxiety in my chest because I would not know what to hand you. But I know that pens are for writing. Why do you want it red? Choosy boy.

Check out the strawberries that are experienced as red, when they're really black and white. That's an example a gross disconnect. — frank

Gross disconnect between what? What do you even mean by "really" black and white?

Frequencies of light are not color... according to those I'm arguing against. — creativesoul

Correct, just as sugar is not taste.

Gross disconnect between what? What do you even mean by "really" black and white? — Michael

There are no red pixels in that picture. It's an optical illusion. You were talking about correspondence of experience to neural processes. The point was to explain what multiple realizability is. There is no simple correspondence between stimulus and experience.

There are no red pixels in that picture. — frank

What's a red pixel?

There is no simple correspondence between stimulus and experience. — frank

I wasn't talking about a correspondence between stimulus and experience. I was talking about a correspondence between brain states and experience.

Correct, just as sugar is not taste. — Michael

I guess you mean sweet rather than sugar, actually.

No, I mean sugar.

What's a red pixel? — Michael

A pixel that produces the frequency of red.

wasn't talking about a correspondence between stimulus and experience. I was talking about a correspondence between brain states and experience. — Michael

That isn't there either. All kinds of brain states can produce the same experience.

A pixel that produces the frequency of red. — frank

Do you mean a pixel that emits 700nm light?

All kinds of brain states can produce the same experience. — frank

Perhaps, but there are no experiences without brain states, and I doubt the same brain state can produce different experiences.

Do you mean a pixel that emits 700nm light? — Michael

It's a range, but yea.

It's a range, but yea. — frank

So when you say this:

"check out the strawberries that are experienced as red, when they're really black and white"

You are saying this:

"check out the strawberries that are experienced as red when they're not really emitting 700nm light"

But what does the "red" in "experienced as red" mean/refer to? Does it mean this:

"check out the strawberries that are experienced as emitting 700nm light when they're not really emitting 700nm light"

"check out the strawberries that are experienced as red when they're not really emitting 700nm light" — Michael

Right. I don't know what you're talking about with what followed that.

I'm asking you if "experienced as red" means "experienced as emitting 700nm light" given that you defined "red" as "emitting 700nm light".

I'm asking you if "experienced as red" means "experienced as emitting 700nm light" given that you defined "red" as "emitting 700nm light". — Michael

I'm guessing you understood me just fine, you're trying to make a point by pretending you didn't?

I'm guessing you understood me just fine, you're trying to make a point by pretending you didn't? — frank

I want to know if you accept the existence of colours-as-mental-phenomena.

Sugar is simply a carbohydrate. Sweet is the taste.

Sugar is simply a carbohydrate. Sweet is the taste. — javi2541997

I'm aware. That's the point. Claiming that the colour red is 700nm light is as mistaken as claiming that a sweet taste is sugar.

Rather, eating sugar causes a sweet taste and looking at 700nm light causes a red colour.

I want to know if you accept the existence of colours-as-mental-phenomena. — Michael

Sure. My point was that we have limited understanding of how experience works. It's not as simple as: 700nm frequency causes the experience of red.

Sure. — frank

Good. Then the claim I have been making since the start of this discussion is that colours-as-mental-phenomena constitute our ordinary, everyday understanding of colours. When we ordinarily think and talk about colours we are thinking and talking about colours-as-mental-phenomena (even if we do not recognize them as mental phenomena); we are not thinking and talking about wavelengths of light.

It's not as simple as: 700nm frequency causes the experience of red. — frank

Then why did you claim that there is a "gross disconnect" between a red experience and a picture that doesn't emit 700nm light? You seemed to be implying that it is "correct" for 700nm light to cause a red experience and "incorrect" for a different wavelength of light to cause a red experience.

I'm aware. That's the point. — Michael

:up:

Then why did you claim that there is a "gross disconnect" between a red experience and a picture that doesn't emit 700nm light? You seemed to be implying that it is "correct" for 700nm light to cause a red experience and "incorrect" for a different wavelength of light to cause a red experience. — Michael

I was just explaining multiple realizability in case you were interested. 700nm light causes red experiences so often that we call it red light. That's not a misuse of "red." It's just a different usage. As it happens, there are other brain states associated with the experience of red besides the one produced by red light.

As it happens, there are other brain states associated with the experience of red besides the one produced by red light. — frank

Yes, that's what explains dreams, hallucinations, and variations in colour perception, as I have been arguing. Colours, as ordinarily understood, are the mental phenomena caused by neural processes in the visual cortex, regardless of their cause.

700nm light causes red experiences so often that we call it red light. — frank

And this is the important point. It's not the case that we call this experience a red experience because it is the experience of 700nm light; it's the case that we call 700nm light red light because it is the normal cause of red experiences.

The initial/primary use of the word "red" refers to the type of experience, with it's use to refer to the light normally responsible for it post hoc.

And this is the important point. It's not the case that we call this experience a red experience because it is the experience of 700nm light; it's the case that we call 700nm light red light because it is the normal cause of red experiences. — Michael

True.

There is one side insisting that red is the experience that we have of red and the other side that red is the thing that causes the experience, for several pages now.

Is arguing about semantics that interesting?