What colour are the strawberries?

https://twitter.com/social_brains/status/836088599418281984/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Strawberries are red, pixels are blue,
Indirect realism still isn't true.

White and gold. And they're not strawberries, they're a dress.

Strawberries are red, pixels are blue,
Indirect realism still isn't true — unenlightened

So another vote for idealism? Michael will be pleased.

They're red. To say they look red but are actually not red is incoherent. To look red is to be red.

To say they look red but are actually not red is incoherent. To look red is to be red. — Hanover

Wrong. If I am looked at with red tinted sunglasses, I will look red, but I will not be red.

Scientifically speaking, grey/green, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily a mistake to call them red. The illusion exploits a loophole in definitions of "red", which refer both to specific wavelengths of light and hues resembling those of blood/psychologically primary hues i.e. the definitions incorporate both non-cognitive and cognitive elements. These usually match up, but in this case our psychology adjusts the hue throwing a spanner into the works. So, yeah, they're red and not red. Take your pick.


True, although you can take off your glasses, but you can't take out your brain.

The illusion exploits a loophole in definitions of "red", which refer both to specific wavelengths of light and hues resembling those of blood/psychologically primary hues i.e. the definitions incorporate both non-cognitive and cognitive elements. — Baden

I don't know if it's correct to say that the illusion exploits a loophole in the definition of "red". But I would say that certain philosophical positions on colour perception seem to conflate the two.

Strawberries are red, pixels are blue,
Indirect realism still isn't true. — unenlightened

So I look at blue pixels and see red strawberries? Certainly does suggest that we can't reduce the objects of perception to the mind-independent things in front of us that causally explain the perception.

Wrong. If I am looked at with red tinted sunglasses, I will look red, but I will not be red. — Sapientia

What's the difference between red-tinted sunglasses and eyes? They both have a role in influencing what colour we see things to be. Just look at those with tetrachromacy. Do they see the "real" colours, or is the extra type of cone cell performing a "tinting" effect?

Only if there is no difference between the parts and the whole, though.

If the strawberry image just is the pixels, then I would agree with you. But if the strawberry image is composed of pixels, then wholes can have different properties than their parts, and we could reduce the object of perception to mind-independent things which causally explain the perception.

I'm not saying I want to do the latter -- but if we perceive a whole, then the whole could be mind-independent and cause said perception, even while the constituent parts don't share its properties.

So I look at blue pixels and see red strawberries? — Michael

Well no. When I look at blue pixels I see that they are blue, that's how I know they are blue. And when I look at strawberries, I see that they are red, and that's how I know they are red. I don't know what a tetra-chromatic sees in these circumstances, but probably not something that isn't there, even if it's something I don't see.

When I look at blue pixels I see that they are blue, that's how I know they are blue. — unenlightened

And yet when I look at the image I posted I see red strawberries.

I don't know what a tetra-chromatic sees in these circumstances, but probably not something that isn't there, even if it's something I don't see.

I think it's wrong to think that all the colours that we could see a thing to be are "there", and that only organisms with the right kind of eye are able to see them. If I see something as red and a tetrachromat sees it as orange then it's not the case that the thing independently has both red and orange properties but I can only see the red property and the tetrachromat can only see the orange property. It's just the case that we respond differently to the same input (electromagnetic radiation with a certain wavelength).

I'm not saying I want to do the latter -- but if we perceive a whole, then the whole could be mind-independent and cause said perception, even while the constituent parts don't share its properties. — Moliere

Even the whole itself doesn't have all the properties we see it to have (the red hue). That's added by our brain's processing. As explained here, "You brain says, 'the light source that I'm viewing these strawberries under has some blue component to it, so I'm going to subtract that automatically from every pixel.' And when you take grey pixels and subtract out this blue bias, you end up with red."

That's added by our brain's processing. — Michael

Ah, the communal brain, what would we do without it? ;)

What is seeing? Is it something other than the brain's processing of the eye's sensation? Light does not enter the brain, therefore we see nothing. Does this make sense?

Ah, the communal brain, what would we do without it? ;)

What is seeing? Is it something other than the brain's processing of the eye's sensation? Light does not enter the brain, therefore we see nothing. Does this make sense? — unenlightened

I have no idea what you're talking about here.

So I look at blue pixels and see red strawberries? Certainly does suggest that we can't reduce the objects of perception to the mind-independent things in front of us that causally explain the perception. — Michael

The blue pixels arranged in strawberry shapes are mind-independent things which conjoin with the act of perception in which hue adjustment takes place and that state of affairs just is the experience, the seeing, of red strawberries. (Didn't we do all this years ago?)

The blue pixels arranged in strawberry shapes are mind-independent things which conjoin with the act of perception in which hue adjustment takes place and that state of affairs just is the experience, the seeing, of red strawberries. (Didn't we do all this years ago?) — Baden

Sure. But the issue is the object of perception. Does the "red strawberries" in "I see red strawberries" just refer to those blue pixels?

(Should I move these posts out of the shoutbox and into a separate discussion?)

The object of perception is blue pixels arranged in strawberry shapes. You see red strawberries rather than blue ones because the act of seeing inheres that transformational aspect in this case.

The object of perception is blue pixels arranged in strawberry shapes. You see red strawberries rather than blue ones because the act of seeing inheres that transformational aspect in this case. — Baden

So if someone else were to look at them and see orange strawberries then "orange strawberries" in "I see orange strawberries" would also refer to those blue pixels? Then the person who sees red strawberries and the person who sees orange strawberries are seeing the same thing?

(Should I move these posts out of the shoutbox and into a separate discussion?) — Michael

Go for it although I'm unlikely to go too far through this whole rigmarole again. The theoretical differences are mostly just going to boil down to parsimony.

They're seeing the same thing in different ways.

The object of perception is blue pixels arranged in strawberry shapes. You see red strawberries rather than blue ones because the act of seeing inheres that transformational aspect in this case. — Baden

I wonder what else the act of perception inheres, aside from colour. Smell? Taste? Feeling? Shape?

They're seeing the same thing in different ways.

If by this you just mean that the same external object(s) are causally responsible for the perception, but that the perception itself is different, then sure. I'm sure even the indirect realist would accept that. But is that all it means to see the same thing?

I wonder what else the act of perception inheres, aside from colour. Smell? Taste? Feeling? Shape? — Michael

Stuff that can be seen.

I'm convinced we're not going to find logical inconsistencies in each other's positions but different ways of describing the same thing that work on their own terms.

I'm convinced we're not going to find logical inconsistencies in each other's positions but diffetent ways of describing the same thing that work on their own terms. — Baden

At least in our case, yeah. It's really just a semantic dispute.

Agreed.

Even the whole itself doesn't have all the properties we see it to have (the red hue). That's added by our brain's processing. As explained here, "You brain says, 'the light source that I'm viewing these strawberries under has some blue component to it, so I'm going to subtract that automatically from every pixel.' And when you take grey pixels and subtract out this blue bias, you end up with red." — Michael

When did I have a conversation with my brain? Or does it speak to itself?

Obviously this way of talking is supposed to convey something -- but what does this personification of the brain convey? What in the world does it mean to say "Your brain says 'the light source that i'm viewing these strawberries under has some blue component to it, so I'm going to subtract that automatically from every pixel'"?

Colors which set next to one another change the way said colors look. Similarly so with what surrounds some color. So it is with this picture. Why do you believe that the brain "adds" red to the strawberries? (and, for that matter, why doesn't the brain add gray? I imagine you believe that it does -- but then why is this picture different? What does it demonstrate?)


I tend to find "your brain did it" explanations of perception to be something of a black box -- only worse, because even the inputs aren't defined. (images? pixels? wavelengths? information?) The brain is clearly involved, but "your brain adds red to the image because of the blue surrounding it, like it always does in all environments with blue lighting to maintain the colors which objects are thought to have" just doesn't cut it for an explanation. It's no different from saying "red next to blue looks more red", but somehow a third actor -- the brain -- gets involved and does this.

Line 1 is a feeble joke.

Line 2 is a serious question that you need to address, because the way you talk is as if the brain processes and adjusts, and then there is seeing of the result, as if there is a homunculus in there somewhere watching a screen.

Line 3 takes indirect realism to its illogical conclusion.

Suppose one does some processing in front of the eye, with polarised lenses. Filtering out the reflected glare enables one to see detail that would otherwise be lost. Not detail that 'isn't really there'. One does not say that a camera is indirectly seeing because one puts a filter on the lens, so why should one say it of oneself? Interpretation, of light conditions and other stuff is part of seeing, and 'optical illusions' expose how we see, not how we fail to see. We see the true colour despite poor lighting. Hurrah for seeing!

Colors which set next to one another change the way said colors look. Similarly so with what surrounds some color. So it is with this picture. Why do you believe that the brain "adds" red to the strawberries? (and, for that matter, why doesn't the brain add gray? I imagine you believe that it does -- but then why is this picture different? What does it demonstrate?)

I tend to find "your brain did it" explanations of perception to be something of a black box -- only worse, because even the inputs aren't defined. (images? pixels? wavelengths? information?) The brain is clearly involved, but "your brain adds red to the image because of the blue surrounding it, like it always does in all environments with blue lighting to maintain the colors which objects are thought to have" just doesn't cut it for an explanation. It's no different from saying "red next to blue looks more red", but somehow a third actor -- the brain -- gets involved and does this. — Moliere

I'm just reporting on what the neuroscientist said about it. He's the expert.

And it's not as simple as two colours "sitting next to each other" appearing as a different colour. Remember the dress? People saw different colours - some white and gold, others blue and black - even though the stimulus was the same. And that's because the stimulus isn't the only thing that's responsible for the perception of colour. Our bodies play an essential role in that dress being either white and gold or blue and black.