Does Light Actually Illuminate?

[Tinker Grey]

I clicked agree for the rest of your post. On this point, however, I note that not all members can successfully communicate.

Well, I did say "inasmuch" and "almost".

 

[partinobodycular]

The 'reality external to them' is still a model perceived by someone.

Your illogic is consistent, I'll give you that.

I don't really think of SelfSim's position as being illogical, more that it's unproductive and unhelpful, which is something that I'm quite familiar with, being an epistemological solipsist. Solipsism is another position which while not totally illogical is also not very useful in most discussions, which is why you won't catch me harping on it very much.

I've found that with most people there is at least some semblance of logic to their madness, although you may have to look very hard to find it. Of course I'm also aware that quite often I'm one of those people.

 

[Ophiolite]

I don't really think of SelfSim's position as being illogical, more that it's unproductive and unhelpful, which is something that I'm quite familiar with, being an epistemological solipsist. Solipsism is another position which while not totally illogical is also not very useful in most discussions, which is why you won't catch me harping on it very much.

I've found that with most people there is at least some semblance of logic to their madness, although you may have to look very hard to find it. Of course I'm also aware that quite often I'm one of those people.

If really pressed upon my belief system I have been known to claim adherence to that delightful concept from Robert Heinlein - pantheistic, multi-person solipsism!

 

[durangodawood]

....I would guess that most of us don't take these semantics under advisement when someone tells you their car is red....

Yes. Color is experienced with a lot of consistency. 100 people will mostly agree on what things are "red", with possible disagreement on edge cases.

But is each internal experience just like mine? Probably, I'd guess. But who really knows?

 

[SelfSim]

I don't really think of SelfSim's position as being illogical, more that it's unproductive and unhelpful, which is something that I'm quite familiar with, being an epistemological solipsist. Solipsism is another position which while not totally illogical is also not very useful in most discussions, which is why you won't catch me harping on it very much.

You see only Solipsism, which prevents you from seeing the perspective .. which is actually a consistent conclusion, abundantly evidenced, from an objectively testable, scientifically formed hypothesis.

I've found that with most people there is at least some semblance of logic to their madness, although you may have to look very hard to find it. Of course I'm also aware that quite often I'm one of those people.

Your self-confessed madness aside (and noted), the highly useful point of the underlying hypothesis however, (which actually demonstrates that minds conceive everything in the notion of 'an external reality'), is in highlighting the almost absolute reliance upon the very common belief at the core of philosophical Realism. Such an absolutist view completely negates the abundance of objective evidence supporting the role the mind plays in the way we perceive the universe .. (which is about as close to 'madness' as I can think of).

The idea is to shift emphasis away from the belief of objects existing 'external' from us, (which is entirely objectively undemonstrable), in order to incorporate the impact our minds have on our models of physics and the universe .. which would be a major step forward from arguing over an over again from the principle of some individual's claim of having some special insight into what's 'physically real', using very poor science as the cover-up for what is, demonstrably, just another belief.

The OP's opening statement contains the condition of: 'if light actually "illuminates" anything in reality)', which merely assumes that Realist belief as being some kind of 'universal truth', when nothing could be more removed from any such 'truth' demonstrable via the objective method. It has no place in this forum, (IMO). After all, this is supposed to be a scientific forum, is it not?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Yes. Color is experienced with a lot of consistency. 100 people will mostly agree on what things are "red", with possible disagreement on edge cases.

But is each internal experience just like mine? Probably, I'd guess. But who really knows?

I agree. But we know about rods and cones. We know about transmission of signals from the eyes to the brain. In principle we could measure how objects that reflect various wavelengths trigger effects/processing in the brain. I imagine some degree of this has been done, but you have to filter out, the fact that it is a car, that it is parked at such-an-such an angle, etc. It should be much easier if you're using 3x5 cards, say, in a fixed environment with a limited number of variables.

I also imagine that we haven't come to much of a conclusion or we might have heard about it. I suspect, however, that what we will find human responses will fall in a bell-curve of possible responses. That is, we can expect X percent of response to fall with Y standard deviations from the mean.

But, too, it's possible that the responses would be so scattered as to prohibit any kind of reasonable guess. But ... I rather suspect that the first scenario is more likely.

 

[SelfSim]

Yes. Color is experienced with a lot of consistency. 100 people will mostly agree on what things are "red", with possible disagreement on edge cases.

But is each internal experience just like mine? Probably, I'd guess. But who really knows?

Its interesting to go back and exploring how we all originally learned that 'red' is red.
In my case, someone, somewhere way back, when I was barely communicative, (I think), drummed that idea into me .. and it stuck(?) I suppose I can say that now, being a parent myself and having repeated the same process(?)

 

[SelfSim]

But, too, it's possible that the responses would be so scattered as to prohibit any kind of reasonable guess. But ... I rather suspect that the first scenario is more likely.

I don't think we have to suspect that .. its objectively demonstrable. One conclusion is pretty clear is that we all process 'sensory information' in similar ways .. which is not so surprising, given that we (objectively) all also posses the same brain type, which incorporates the 'rods and cones' model as the primary explanation.
Noteworthy: is that there is no objective evidence there however, supporting the belief that some physical reality: 'red' say, therefore, 'exists external from us'.

 

[durangodawood]

I agree. But we know about rods and cones. We know about transmission of signals from the eyes to the brain. In principle we could measure how objects that reflect various wavelengths trigger effects/processing in the brain. I imagine some degree of this has been done, but you have to filter out, the fact that it is a car, that it is parked at such-an-such an angle, etc. It should be much easier if you're using 3x5 cards, say, in a fixed environment with a limited number of variables.

I also imagine that we haven't come to much of a conclusion or we might have heard about it. I suspect, however, that what we will find human responses will fall in a bell-curve of possible responses. That is, we can expect X percent of response to fall with Y standard deviations from the mean.

But, too, it's possible that the responses would be so scattered as to prohibit any kind of reasonable guess. But ... I rather suspect that the first scenario is more likely.

Sure, lets say we can in-principle understand all the physical processes of color apprehension. Do you think that would be sufficient to grant access to another persons first-person experiences? I'm skeptical.

(But maybe I've fallen into one of those philosophical traps of chasing down something that doesnt exist in any way. Like the notion "first person experience" is just an artifact of how we think about things rather than a real phenomenon. I dont think so. But would be interested to hear why I'm wrong.)

 

[SelfSim]

(But maybe I've fallen into one of those philosophical traps of chasing down something that doesnt exist in any way. Like the notion "first person experience" is just an artifact of how we think about things rather than a real phenomenon. I dont think so. But would be interested to hear why I'm wrong.)

I think its fine to say that your 'first person experience' there, is common enough across the whole human population, to give credence to saying such experiences are real phenomena and therefore exist.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The 'reality external to them' is still a model perceived by someone.

Sure, and the discussion assumes that model. ISTM that without that model, there's nothing to discuss and no one to discuss with.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Sure, lets say we can in-principle understand all the physical processes of color apprehension. Do you think that would be sufficient to grant access to another persons first-person experiences? I'm skeptical.

(But maybe I've fallen into one of those philosophical traps of chasing down something that doesnt exist in any way. Like the notion "first person experience" is just an artifact of how we think about things rather than a real phenomenon. I dont think so. But would be interested to hear why I'm wrong.)

Through intersubjective communication, I suspect that we all suspect that our experience of "red" independent of cars and apples are much the same. If we were able to neutralize confounding variables (like when statisticians control for income and race and gender, etc.), and we saw that the exact (for some useful degree of exactness) same areas of the brain were lit to the same degrees of intensity, etc., we might reasonably conclude that we all experience red the same way--At least the "we" that don't suppose some sort of mind-body duality.

I rather suspect that it won't be that and we'll be left wondering how "durangodawood experiences red". I think either answer is interesting. But as I said earlier, as long as we can meaningfully communicate about "red" it's not that important. But I'm shortsighted; there may be consequences and implications whatever the answer that I can't foresee.

 

[SelfSim]

Sure, and the discussion assumes that model. ISTM that without that model, there's nothing to discuss and no one to discuss with.

Assuming "red's", (for eg), actual existence, external from the very mind perceving it, is a nonsensical proposition. The discussion only becomes objectively useful without references to assumptions based on such untestable beliefs.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Assuming "red's", (for eg), actual existence, external from the very mind perceving it, is a nonsensical proposition. The discussion only becomes objectively useful without references to assumptions based on such untestable beliefs.

How would it be objectively useful without assuming objective reality?

 

[SelfSim]

How would it be objectively useful without assuming objective reality?

Good question. One has to actually recognise (via testing) how the phrase 'objective reality', which you used there, acquires its meaning.
That process doesn't call for completely ignoring the mind required for assigning the meaning of that phrase.

The alternative method calls for simply believing 'objective reality', (or 'red'), miraculously zapped into existence without any human involvement whatsoever .. in which case, you have stepped outside the method used for assigning 'objective reality', or 'red', their respective meanings. Gross inconsistency.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Good question. One has to actually recognise (via testing) how the phrase 'objective reality', which you used there, acquires its meaning.
That process doesn't call for completely ignoring the mind required for assigning the meaning of that phrase.

ISTM that's how we arrive at what we call objective reality - continual testing, both formal (scientific) and informal (everyday interaction). As Philip K Dick said, "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away".

 

[A_Thinker]

We don't know what kind of image, or reaction a dolphin imagines when it uses echolocation for instance. But if it creates a kind of imagery in the dolphins mind, then is that image real..? In the same way, when humans detect light, by photons passing through our eyes, is the light *actually* as real as our minds perceive it to be?

IOW, perhaps the sun is *actually* very dark, and perhaps, the world is pitch black in reality... But we perceive it differently because of our brain's unique ability to interpret photons in a useful way.

Photons are light ... which is a form of energy.

Photons affect the surfaces of the objects they strike. Light energy can transmit "heat" to practically anything it touches. Light energy supplies the photosynthesis process of plants. And light energy bouncing into our eyes ... allows us to "see" the world around us.

 

[A_Thinker]

Light is bouncing off my lunch and into my eyes. I see that. The visual form of my lunch is corroborated by my sense of touch. I'm not grasping how this is illusory.

At different scales, the lunch would be described differently. But why should I privilege those other scales as "more real"?

Also ... your sense of smell and taste.

Hopefully, your lunch isn't making any noise ...

 

[A_Thinker]

I was just curious if light actually "illuminates" anything in reality, or do our eyes just perceive photon reflections, off of objects and photon detection, as illumination.

IOW, are our eyes deceiving us, causing a mental picture of our surroundings by exploiting it's own unique ability to analyze photons?

One should consider the corroboration of our senses. Our eyes present an image of the world around us ... which is almost 100% corroborated by our other senses.

For instance, we see a doorknob, we reach out and touch a doorknob, allowing us to turn the doorknob. We see a crying baby ... and we hear that cry at the same time. We see a fresh brewed cup of coffee ... and we smell and taste that coffee in the same moment.

We are only occasionally fooled (i.e. deceived), typically by optical illusions ... like a rainbow for instance.

 

[A_Thinker]

But it still leaves me wondering why we generally see the stoplight as red and not yellow?

Your eyes are consistently and accurately interpreting sensory data of a particular wavelength of light.

(Actually, your eyes are just collecting and transmitting the sensory input ... your brain is actually doing the interpreting ... )