Color, abstactions, and accidents

[Calrid]

The idealism thing makes sense and explains what you mean I think. Thanks for taking the time to explain it.

I think Descartes should of stuck to maths personally, so we can agree at least that his form of arm waving dualism is not really very informative about reality, in fact it tends to leave us in all sorts of dead ends.

[Amorphos]

Calrid wrote: If it is part of our perceptual world, on LSD or not, colour and sound need an observer with some discretion to make the identities coherent. There is no colour without sight and no sound without hearing. Perception deals in qualia, and qualia do not exist outside of the mind, as subjective as that may and necessarily has to be

Ok firstly we can agree that colour and sound etc are perceptual, but I’d say there is colour without sight or sound without hearing. This is because the perception of them derives imho from electrical signals rather than the original frequencies, this is why we can see something that is different to what light-waves determine. Examples can be found not only with what drugs do I.e. create false or otherwise imaginary inputs and present them to the perception, but also in optical illusions [inner and outer false correlation of perception to inputs].

It would be wrong to omit further rigour in our logic here; just as colour is not a property of light-waves, in the same way it cannot be said to be a property of neuronal electrical signals. In both cases we have an object forming a wavelength, then that gives [contains?] information from which the mind may perceive meaning about its environment. Electrical signals also may derive from other neuronal sources e.g. the memory and the imagination, which again presents information to the perceiver.

Crucially then, surely we must state that colour properly derives from information, as it is not a property of the signals as mentioned.

That both information and colour are not physical objects, they occur [in the least] as respective agents derived of them.

Additional; Weather or not that too is always the case is quite another question, when we consider fundamentals and origins it seems to me that we have to go beyond objects, then to background information and perhaps beyond that. So it would appear to be like this; I [1] {info} ≡ O {objects} ≡
I [2], where O changes the language of I [2].

Does all this mean that there is a fabric of reality - so to speak, whereby colour and info as consciousness or mind, are brought into being as requested? E.g. if the perceiver gets a signal where its information tells the perceiver that the colour ‘red’ is to be observed ~ either in the mind or as observed in the world, then the colour ‘red’ occurs?
Or rather than a fabric of reality, colour and info are mental/perceptual and we call that a quality of mind? Surely info is out there in the world and it seems equally strange to refer to a thing as mental qualia ~ there are only thing-ness’s, what does mental object or qualia even mean.

_

[lizbethrose]

My older brother is red-green color blind. People with him, who aren't so impaired can 'see' the colors, while he sees only various shades of gray. Does this mean that color is always present, but that its perception depends on the brain chemistry of the perceiver?

[FilmSnob]

My older brother is red-green color blind. People with him, who aren't so impaired can 'see' the colors, while he sees only various shades of gray. Does this mean that color is always present, but that its perception depends on the brain chemistry of the perceiver?

It means that your brother's brain doesn't analyze some of the rays that bounce off of red and green things in the same way as most humans. The object is the same, the characteristics are the results of interactions between perciever and object. If the object or the perciever change, the characteristics of the object change.

This "of the object" is what causes all the confusion. It doesn't mean that the characteristic is intrinsic to the object, it just means that it can only happen in the presence of that object, or that it is associated with the object,

[Amorphos]

Pezer, may I ask if there was anything wrong with the logic in my last post?

Liz, your brothers colour cones in the back of the eye arent giving the right info/signals I’d expect, either way the signals his brain is getting contains the wrong info. Get the info right and he’ll see colour.
I have seen experiments where hearing and even the tongue is used for sight, although such science is at a rudimentary level at the moment, I doubt it will be long before there’s a way to give the optical cortex the correct signals/info.