Does Color Exist Without Light

Colour is a mental creation. Going with the materialist view; light enters the eyes and a signal is sent to the brain, upon which the brain creates an image. It is the brain image that is seen and experienced. We can call that brain created image whatever we want, but the entire process from beginning to end is a mental one.

Meaning, the idea that light enters the eye is also mental. So the whole (materialist) explanation is circular and completely fails to explain sight, or how supposed independent objects, such as tables become ?'experiences' existing with'in' an organises mind, i.e. they don't.

And as per the Q, of course colour exists without light, e .g. night dreams have colour.

And you know the interior of the scull is quite a dark place. The brain sits in darkness and imagines light, not only in night dreams…..

So Wake Up from the bright light of day….

Twyvel,

Surely the imagining of any perceptual experience (color, sound, taste) all depend on prior conscious experience or actual interaction of observer and observed.

When SCoates makes the claim for color being a "property" of the un-illuminated object, he is predicting (imagining) the outcome of a potential interaction when light is present. IMO he is correct in as much that all "properties" are such predictions, but the statement is vacuous without prior and potential future observational experience.

hey kuvasz, welcome back. All is , I hope, well.

fresco



To take that a bit deeper, there is no observer, i.e. there is nothing that ?'sees' the brain created image.

But apart from that….

Yes, the ?'experience' as experienced is greeted with familiarity, or is one of familiarity. But that that experience is created through ?'interaction' is only apparently so.




Fresco, the problem is the above assumes there exists an "un-illuminated object", that there is an object ?'there' prior to illumination, prior to ?'looking'. That there is a there there is an assumption.

Okay, again apart from that.

The (supposed) object we see is a brain created image, and if we create a theory based on the idea that sensory objects are not creations then we are starting from false premises, are we not?

Interesting points, Fresco.

Twyvel, the fact that color may exist in dreams, or by recollection is interesting, but I don't think the logic is in a valid format to be applicable.

For example, the logic is in the same format as "world war II has not ended because it is recorded in books." (Compared to the parallel, once light is no longer present, "color still exists since it has been recorded by the brain.")

Still, an interesting occurence of color in the absense of light.

Twyvel,

The "un-illuminated object" implies "object properties" other than visual. I agree that at one level subject-object differences break down but I feel that this mutuality is sufficiently covered by the concept of "interaction". I would not go as far as to say both observer and observed are "brought forth" as aspects of holistic consciousness in thiscontext, because what is at stake here is "conflict resolution" (SCoates + Prof) within a dualistic paradigm, not deconstruction of that paradigm. As you correctly imply, from the nondualist perspective neither protagonist could say anything about "objects" !

Yes fresco….

"Objects are void."……as is often said in nondual literature, [also] implies that there are objects to be void.

I see your point about conflict resolution,……though ontologically the issue of perception is unresolvable....

SCoates are you familiar with Synaesthesia

Here's an excerpt:…….from here


"When Matthew Blakeslee shapes hamburger patties with his hands, he experiences a vivid bitter taste in his mouth. Esmerelda Jones (a pseudonym) sees blue when she listens to the note C sharp played on the piano; other notes evoke different hues--so much so that the piano keys are actually color-coded, making it easier for her to remember and play musical scales. And when Jeff Coleman looks at printed black numbers, he sees them in color, each a different hue. Blakeslee, Jones and Coleman are among a handful of otherwise normal people who have synesthesia. They experience the ordinary world in extraordinary ways and seem to inhabit a mysterious no-man's-land between fantasy and reality. For them the senses--touch, taste, hearing, vision and smell--get mixed up instead of remaining separate."
…..

Then again, if not for its ontological difficulties, perception would be nowhere near the discussion-fodder it is. :wink:

Good points, folks. I have the image of the blind men and the elephant. You all seem to have a grasp of some facets of the phenomenon of color. It is, IN PART, objective potential properties of matter; it is IN PART, a reflection of theoretical principles of physics; it is, IN PART, a reflection of our neural processes (I've even seen colors when punched in a fight); and it is, IN PART, a subjective experience. And we must not overlook the reality that since any particular experience of color reflects the interdependence of perceiver and perceived, it is essentially without substance, unable to stand alone as a single independent condition or event--unless, of course, we treat the interdepence/interaction as an "empty" unit (I'm thinking here of Nagarjuna's sunya).

Twyvel, I am familiar with the concept, but not many cases. My understanding (or rather, I should say "guess") is that it is caused by some sort fo faulty, or at least abnormal, wiring of the brain. Pthways that don't usually form.

I wonder if evolution will ever allow us to control our brains. It's very common for us to try and produce images in our minds, but it is even possible to make yourself hear sounds that aren't actually there (usually only when I'm really tired ). I wonder if it would be possible to make yourself smell certain things with enough concentration or practice. I'm certain it would be. Just a thought.

SCoates, I remember reading of some Tibetan Buddhists whose meditative powers of concentration were so great they could "conjure" the appearance of a "dark girl" with whom they would have sex. The vividness of this girl was so great that she could be felt and even seen by others. Not sure I believe this latter claim, but if the rest is so it would answer your question about the ability to experience smells by means of imagination.

Color does not exist without light in any meaningful way. In the context set by this question, remembered color is not meaningful. By the same standard the phrase "color of the object" is not meaningful.

We can only dream what we remember experiencing. Without the experience of light, a colorful dream would never occur.

It's been suggested since the 'thing' about objects which determine their color remain in the absence of light, therefore, the 'thing' about the object can be called its 'color'. However, this 'thing' already has a name & is the natural frequency of the object's electrons (frequencies of light which match an electron's natural frequency are absorbed & translated into heat energy, the rest is reflected causing the 'object's color'*).



*there are more scenarios than absorbtion or reflection but are not relevant & considered too rare for consideration.

"color of the object is not meaningful"? Forgive me, but that doesn't make sense.

Have you actually read all of the posts so far?

In a sense yes.

The direct potential for a colour wave to be projected is there.

SCoates, I think salient here is that color is an attribute of light, not of matter. Your position is understandable, from an experiential viewpoint. However, what must be considered regardin' that point of view is that what most folks consider "Light" is light a particular quality; namely undifracted, unpolarized illumination havin' a color temperature of approximately 5500º Kelvin, or nominal mid-day clear-sky sunlight. Change the color temperature, difract, or polarize the light, and the perceived color of matter reflectin' that light changes, sometimes dramatically. So long as there is light, there will be color, but the apparent, or perceived, color of matter is wholly dependent upon the qualities of the light by which that matter is illuminated.

I thought about this subject, and I came to think about sound. If we didn't use our light, but sound to create the mental image of the world, would we experience color then? Light is not essential for this kind of perception. It could be pitch black, doesn't matter. We'd see a wooden railing differently than a metal railing for instance, according to the reverberations the matter sends out. They'd have different mental images corresponding to their substance.

I simply wondered if it's possible to change light with sound for the sake of the experiment.

While it may be true that color is an attribute of light, sound is an attribute of the object. But sound needs a carrier, and light does not. It just needs a source and a clear path.

Don't know if this is relevant. Ignore it if it's not. Thanks.

If light bounces off the surfaces of two differently constituted objects, the color experienced by an occipital lobe should be different. Right? If so, can't we say that the properties of the "matter" comprising the two objects is involved in the creation of color? Light is a necessary cause, but is it a sufficient cause (for the experience) of color?

Another thought: in the absence of a light what do I see, black? Can I call that the "absence of color"? If so, then in the presence of light an object painted black is an object emitting no color. If that is so, then light is clearly not a sufficient cause of the experience of color.