« first day (2374 days earlier)      last day (43 days later) » 

2:10 AM
an important idea for me recently: read things that challenge you, not just what appeals to you
(i read the first critique recently on advice of this kind for the 'self-taught'...)
 
 
4 hours later…
6:34 AM
@HWalters Hi Mr Walters. Now do you understand that detection is not perception?
If you have a moment, read this debate. Show me the flaw in my argument. debate.org/debates/Is-visible-light-actually-visible/1
 
7:01 AM
@ZaneScheepers The primary mistake in your argument is very, very simple. You just plain old beg the question.
You very quickly touch on the definition of "to see". My first response to you in this forum was something you didn't take seriously at all; you used that to mistake me for being a "subconscious realist" of some sort, which completely missed the point
People who claim we see light aren't saying what you're saying they're saying
In fact, you in substance agreed with me that I'm able to detect that a light is on, with the specific reference to an example of semantic (not ontological) significance of being able to discern whether or not I need to change the bulb after flipping the switch
If I'm taking a driver's test, I might be instructed to look straight ahead. The instructor will then ask me a question like, "do you see the lights flashing (in your peripheral)"? She's not being a realist. She's not trying to ask me if my subjective experience is noumenal. She just wants to know if I can detect the flashing.
That's all it means to see
To "see an x"
Also (I'm assuming that in this debate you're "Con") you get some basic biological details about vision wrong. Our cones do not have individual nerves going to the brain. The brain doesn't see raw cone signals.
Vision doesn't start by objects emitting 3 types of light. There's an entire spectrum of light from red to violet
We have three cone types, plus rods; each cone is sensitive to each frequency of light in different ways. But they don't work like RGB cameras.
If you're going to go into the details about how our eyes work, it would be nice to get those details right
"The three different types of cones on our retina, each contain a different type of rhodopsin" <- you mean photopsin. rhodopsin is the photopsin present in rods. Cones have chlorolabe, erythrolabe, and cyanolabe. Rods play no role in "color vision" (photopic vision); they're saturated and useless under photopic vision. Instead, they're active during scotopic vision ("night vision" as we call it).
"Objects (not the actual objects but visual representations of them) are seen (consciously perceived) as a result" <- Since you asked me to comment on this specifically, that's fair; except that it's debatable whether we perceive "consciously"
 
7:26 AM
@HWalters how so?
 
It's just that there's things we perceive, on up to semantic content, and surprisingly even what we might call "qualia", on "alternate channels"... without being aware of it
 
And what exactly is the flashing x we see? Light? Or the object emitting the light?
 
I wish I could have found the specific video, but if you pay very careful attention to yourself you might actually pick up on it
I see an x on the screen that's only an artificial object
There's no "thing" there shaped like an x; it's just a region on my monitor emitting less light
 
@HWalters yes I'm aware that our subconscious perceives more than our conscious.
So we're seeing contrast?
 
Not exactly... there's an object being perceived. It's artificial.
 
7:31 AM
When you put on a light in a dark room, do you consciously perceive light?
 
The "straightness" of it, it's "unity", it's separation of ground versus background, it's meaning... there's a lot going on there
 
Or do you consciously perceive the objects in the room and deduce that there is light?
 
That I believe would depend on what you're asking exactly
The second question isn't mutually exclusive from the first
If that light is on, and there's an apple in front of me, there's also light in front of me. Whether that's deduced or definitive may just depend on how you set it up
 
Light, electromagnetic radiation, not light, brightness. Do we consciously perceive electromagnetic radiation? Or the objects from which the electromagnetic radiation originates?
 
Light, electromagnetic radiation, is a theoretical construct
But so are apples
 
7:38 AM
True, but Apple's are physical objects which have mass.
 
If I say I see an apple, I'm partially talking about what I perceive; and partially deducing
Mass is a theoretical construct
 
I see Apple's because my eyes detect light.
 
It's a lot more complex than that
 
I can't see light itself.
No it's not.
 
The apple you see is perceived... perception is extremely complex
 
7:41 AM
What is the purpose of vision?
What evolutionary advantage does it give us?
 
That's a complex question as well. I'm not sure how to answer without oversimplifying...
 
How about, vision allows us to see things?
 
That's kind of tautological
 
But that's the point.
 
In very primitive life forms, vision helps entities find or avoid light
Primitive enough, and there's no "seeing apples"... there's just "egads, light, react"
(personifying o/c)
We use vision in many ways
 
7:46 AM
Detection is a chemical process.
 
As humans, we can even see language
 
That's conception through perception
 
It's an automatic response; we can hardly look at sensible words without reading them
 
Perception is a product of consciousness
 
Seeing language is just as automatic as seeing apples
I'm not sure it is
It's related to consciousness, but I don't think consciousness "produces" it
 
7:49 AM
No. Seeing Apple's is more basic
 
Why?
It's not like we have a gene for seeing apples
 
True. The subconscious produces the image. The conscious perceives it
Individual cones are linked to individual parts of the visual cortex in an inverse direction to the cones position of the retina.
 
I guess it could be called an "image", but somehow that seems to underestimate just how much is involved in perception
This is many, many orders of magnitude more complex than the thing your camera stores
Let's take a step back
We have 6 million cones in our eyes
We have about 90 million rods
There are also a few more photosensitive cells not playing a role in vision
Our optic nerve is a bundle of about 1 million fibers
Individual cones do not connect to the visual cortex
Just from looking at the numbers, it's obvious
 
This implies that the image (creating) process is more mechanical than we imagine
That's where you're wrong
 
Cones connect to ganglial cells in the retina
 
7:56 AM
I can provide the link if you want neurological evidence
Groups of rods link to a single ganglion
But each cone, a single ganglion, a single nerve
 
You're going to have to provide links
Absolutely, I want neurological evidence
 
Sorry... a link of images related to the question doesn't suffice
The claim is that individual cones connect to the visual cortex
You more specifically claimed that each cone connects to a single ganglion
 
Scroll down to lateral geniculate nucleus. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_system
 
I'm just reading statements like this: "About 130 million photo-receptors absorb light, yet roughly 1.2 million axons of ganglion cells transmit information from the retina to the brain."
 
8:09 AM
On the fringes, yes, but in the fovia, the ratio is 1 to 1
 
You can click on the link on receptive fields.... mainstream theory of color perception is that it involves Opponent processes
 
A cone on the top of the fovia is linked to a equivalent but inverted spot in the visual cortex
 
In your link I see the following sentence: "Each foveal cone cell makes a one-to-one connection with a ... bipolar cell. Each of the bipolar cells is connected in turn to a ganglial cell."
So, yes, it's a one-to-one connection to the bipolar cells, but we're talking about the ganglial cells
 
I don't agree with that. Brightness is a result of the amplitude of light. It's intensity
 
You don't agree with what?
Absolute brightness is
Have you ever seen a projector?
Typical setup... projector with a screen
Most of those screens are white
But something really magic happens
You turn the projector on, and it projects an image onto that white screen
That image could have black objects in it
All the projector did was add light
Absolute brightness is a physical property... but we could see the same brightness as black or white depending on the surround
 
8:18 AM
Visual perception is about contrast
Brightness is phenomenal
It's not a physical property
It's a result of how much the receptors are stimulated
Not what wavelengths it detects
 
"Brightness" measured in magnitude is discussed in astronomy constantly
That being apparent brightness
It's a term
 
This leads me to believe it's the rods which determine brightness, not the cones
 
Then you have a non-mainstream theory
 
True.
We CAN measure intensity which is perceived as brightness
 
You really need to appreciate that not everyone shares your dictionary
 
8:24 AM
Lol, I'm beginning to realize that
I'm not a well educated person. My vocabulary is limited
I sometimes misinterpret the meanings of words. That's probably why it's so difficult to get my ideas accross
 
That's not a huge problem, so long as you don't try to convince other people who use a word that they mean something they don't... that's where the issue arises
 
If you don't mind, can we continue this discussion later. I have things to do
 
Certainly... I was about to announce my departure as well
 
As always, it's a pleasure chatting to you sir.
 
 
2 hours later…
9:58 AM
@PhilipKlöcking: thanks for the link. I'm reading it now.
@user685252: Good morning! If its morning in your time-zone...
 
@PhilipKlöcking: I like this from your link: Here again, ad-Dajjal is pictured as a human individual whose appearance is deformed, who is not human as he should be. To my knowledge, the best comment describing him is one that was made by the thirteenth-century Farid Ud-Din ‘Attar, a Persian mystic who said that at the end of time there will come two Dajjal, not one.
(The Arabic word dajjal means one who lies.) There will be one who has only his right eye and sees the world as all spirit. He will be a liar. There will be one who has only his left eye and will see the world as simply matter and material things. He will be a liar. The true vision of reality, then, is one that sees reality as a whole—both material and spiritual.
@user685252: hows it going?
 
Fine thanks, how are you?
 
@user685252: just in the process of waking my self up via a caffeine shot (ie tea); its morning here in London; where you based - across the pond?
 
yup
 
10:14 AM
East coast or West coast - I hear they're very different; thats what you get when you're country is the size of a continent... ;).
 
the west coast is the best coast, while da east coast is da beast coast :-D
 
Ok, so you're a west coast patriot ;-).
 
West coast yes, but the patriots are THE pride and joy of New England (north east corner, ie Boston)
 
I've always heard Boston is a nice place to live. Is it expensive?
 
Yup, that's home of the Ivy League.
 
10:26 AM
Aren't there Ivy League colleges on the West Coast?
 
Technically no, the Ivy League colleges are all in the north east; but Stanford and Berkeley are pretty highly regarded.
 
How about UCLA?
 
Yup and caltech.
 
Wheres MIT based? Massachussets, so probably East coast.
 
Yup. Right beside Harvard :P
Across the river from Boston
 
10:31 AM
Whats the river called?
How come you're hanging out in philosophy? I'm trained as physicist - kindof; I do philosophy when that gets to be a pain...
 
Charles?
 
Charles river?
 
I think so...
 
Thats surprising. I've never heard of a river named after a guy...
Are the're rivers called Mike and andrew ;).?
 
10:36 AM
I've no Idea where the name comes from...
Thames seems to be named after a colour 'dark gray'; that figures, even on a sunny day it looks gray.
 
TIL
:-)
They say that about the Mississippi also.
Anyway enjoy your tea, cheerio!
 
ok. Cheers.
 
 
2 hours later…
12:29 PM
Alpha!
Lol, stupid auto correct.
Aloha
 
12:46 PM
Lokahi!
@ZaneScheepers: hows life in Hawaii?
 
Good I presume 😁
What's the weather like on Mars?
 
Its a bit cold and a tad windy!
I think I prefer Hawaii!
 
Whats the time in SA?
 
3pm about an hour behind you, or is it ahead of you.😕
 
1:00 PM
You're a couple of hours ahead of us. The clocks ticking its last minute towards 1pm.
I'm waiting for something to download; it's not a large file - but it's taking forever.
 
Lol, my bad. I thought you're in the UK
 
I am in the UK. London to be exact.
I always get time-zones mixed up.
Hows things anyway?
 
Does the U.K. have different time zones?
 
No, they just have the one.
We're not as large as the USA...
 
Same here. We have one big clock in Johannesburg and everyone sets their watch to it 😂
 
1:05 PM
Well, we have Big Ben...
Thats the big clock-tower on the house of parliament.
Hows your pet elephant? Is he awake yet?
 
Lol I know. I'm messing with you
 
Do you speak Afrikaans?
 
He got out last night. Raided the neighbours banana plantation. He's grounded for a week.
 
Poor elephant. I bet you've not been feeding him right!
 
Yup. Fluent in English and Afrikaans. Basic Arabic, German, French, Espaniole and I can say "I love you" in Lithuanian
Dutch is pretty close to Afrikaans, so I can understand it
 
1:11 PM
Wow, a real linguist!
 
Lol you wouldn't say that if you saw Cuddles. He looks like an elephant
 
how did you pick up basic arabic?
I thought you were joking?!
 
My mum's from Malaysian decent.
 
Ah ok.
 
Lol, I am joking. Keeping elephants as pets is socially unacceptable
 
1:14 PM
yeah, I guess. turning up to a dinner party with a pet elephant in tow must be a real no-no.
@PhilipKlöcking: Hi, how did the judo go?
 
Yeah. Finding parking is a problem. 😁
Oh, hi Philip.
 
@MoziburUllah: Way too early, but after like 15 years of teaching not even 30 teens aren't much of a problem
Hi all ;)
 
Teaching judo sounds way more fun that teaching maths ;).
 
It is fun, but it cannot provide one's maintenance
Well, unless you own your own, successful school, that is
@MoziburUllah: Just read the excerpt of the link I shared that you quoted. Reminds me much of the end of Zarathustra you recently quoted (iirc)
 
Yeah, I've always found maintenance hard work...
 
1:22 PM
Philip, question. Is it possible a photon can be stretched, resulting in a drop in its amplitude?
 
I quoted that bit from Z since its makes a change from using stuff thats quoted in relation to him viz Death of God.
Actually Death of God is mentioned in that link with relation to Islam ie Tammuz.
As the prophet Ezekiel put it, “And there sat women weeping for Tammuz” (Ezekiel 8:14). On the banks of the Tigris and the Euphrates sat women and men expressing their emotions of fear and hope, as they sang dirges for the God who died, in order to bring Him back to life.
 
@ZaneScheepers: The Doppler-Effect makes a photon appear "stretched" if the emitting object is moving away (red-shifting in astronomy). This influences the energy of single photons. Photons do not have an amplitude in any conventional way. Brightness is about the number of photons, not their individual energy.
@MoziburUllah: Yep, just saying that it is an interesting thought that with a bit of work, you could depict Z as a redeemable person in Islam and this bit hinting at it.
 
@ZaneScheepers: You can talk about the amplitude when you're talking about the wave description of light.
 
Lol, thanks. So it's possible rods detect brightness?
@MoziburUllah I don't see the point if the amplitude serves no purpose.
 
@PhilipKlöcking: His encounter with the Ugliest Man was a bit of a surprise to me when I came across it. I was wondering why no one mentioned it.
@PhilipKlöcking: sure; but the wave description of light is still useful.
 
1:32 PM
Wavelength determines the color we perceive. The number of photons determines the brightness... What does the amplitude indicate?
 
@ZaneScheepers: theres two description of light - wave and particle; there's wave-particle duality, if you've heard of that; I've forgotten a lot of the physics I once knew...
 
@ZaneScheepers: cns.nyu.edu/~david/courses/perception/lecturenotes/light-adapt/… Basically, both cones and rods detect brightness.
 
amplitude, in the wave description, is to do with intensity as well.
 
@MoziburUllah I might have heard something to that effect.
 
But rarely at the same time, or perhaps only in a short transitional period
 
1:35 PM
have you heard of wavicle?
@PhilipKlöcking: sure.
 
Lol, did you come up with that?
 
No, I read it somewhere in my late teens ... never heard anyone use it!
 
If you look at sound, the wavelength describes the pitch and the amplitude the energy/loudness. In the case of photons, this doesn't make any sense: The wavelength does, at the same time, describe the energy.
 
I thought I'd throw it in!
@PhilipKlöcking: quantisation of sound waves are called phonons...
 
@PhilipKlöcking how do we know? We can't see a photon.
 
1:37 PM
Oh no...are we back to that again ;).
We don't see atoms either - we infer their existence.
 
No I'm not going there.
Just pointing out that's photons themselves are undetectable. We only detect when a photon collides with something
We infer lights existence too btw
 
Sure, collisions are wonderful things; couldn't do physics without collisions.
LHC - large hadron collider!
they used the word collider for good reason...
 
Did you know, the slowest speed light was clocked at, was slower than a man on a bicycle?
 
@ZaneScheepers: Everything is only detectable when "colliding", i.e. interacting. That's why it has been so hard to show that gravitational waves or neutrinos exist: They barely interact. Detection is nothing but a different description for interaction
 
@PhilipKlöcking: have you read Z? I read it 'cos my brother got into it and I wanted to argue with his conclusions...
I'd go along with that.
 
1:44 PM
@PhilipKlöcking thanks. Doesn't answer my question. How do we know amplitude and amount don't affect brightness?
 
I knew you could slow down light - question is can they slow these critturs down so much they stop?
As slow as a bicycle is pretty slow!
 
@MoziburUllah yup. For a couple of seconds
 
@MoziburUllah: Not really. If I had more time at my hands, I would have read so much more :(
@ZaneScheepers: The amplitude of a particle-wave is its mass if I understand correctly. The mass of photons is always identical, therefore their amplitude as a wave is
Equivalent to its mass, expressed as kinetic energy is more correct I guess
 
yeah, finding time for everything is hard; thats why I'm not a big fan of work, it gets in the way...
I think I was reading Z against the grain a la Foucault; I like his short essays, but the big books defeat me.
 
@MoziburUllah: The dangerous thing is when work is related to what you like (in my case: reading philosophy, thinking, arguing) and - as work - gets in the way of things you'd like better :/
 
1:48 PM
amplitude is related to energy; energy is related to mass - so yes.
 
@PhilipKlöcking the more mass, the harder it hits. The brighter the perception. Or am I missing something?
 
@ZaneScheepers: Photons always have the same mass.
 
@JosephWeissman: hey there, hows it going?
 
How do we know? We can't measure them. They don't stand still.
 
@PhilipKlöcking: I discovered that when I was studying physics and I wanted to paint...
@ZaneScheepers: nothing stands still, everything is in motion...
 
1:53 PM
@ZaneScheepers: Because the difference in energy when colliding can fully be explained by different wavelengths, which corresponds quite nicely with both our color vision and experiments (scattering patterns of beams with different energy levels etc).
In other words: Amplitude is not detectable, since it does not make a difference
 
You mean like the red strawberry illusion? And the blue/gold dress?
 
It was the photo-electric effect that was decisive for changing people perspective on light as a wave; Einstein showed it could be understood when described as a particle.
And then they had the two-slit experiment that still confuses everyone.
 
And there we still stand
 
Its the locus classicus of the wave-particle duality confusion.
@PhilipKlöcking: are you teaching philosophy at a school?
It must be pretty progressive as philosophy doesn't get much of hearing in British schools...
 
Do you teach philosophy or a particular view point?
 
2:05 PM
@MoziburUllah: Nope, soon looking for a place to teach at uni and doing my PhD. Ireland introduces philosophy as mandatory in primary school soon because a female philosopher urged to try it and the overall score of the testing classes went through the roof (I remember something like 40-ish percent overall improvement and 60ish percent in maths)
I taught a seminar in moral philosophy and that's kind of my field
 
That kind of makes sense - maths is so specealised.
Apparently philosophy is mandatory in some South American countries - I forget which one.
 
Interesting thing is that all they "taught" was critical thinking, and the outcome was positive for all subjects
 
@PhilipKlöcking: who do you focus on in moral philosophy - Locke?
Is there a Bennett too - or am I misremembering..
 
@MoziburUllah: Kant mainly. But seminars should always be open to different ideas. It just happens that Stoicism and deontological moral philosophy in general is something I can argue best for ;)
 
Bentham not Bennett!
 
2:11 PM
JS Mill and Jeremy Bentham (founders of Utilitarianism), yep
 
@PhilipKlöcking I'll take you up on that some time. 😀
 
Isn't there a greeek slave that ended up writing a standard text in Stoicism...
@PhilipKlöcking: what do you think about online seminars - useful or not useful?
 
Moral letters to Lucilius by Seneca are the standard for most people
 
Epictetus...for some reason I was thinking of Epicurus.
Ah, yes; Seneca - I've never read anything by him; I've read the mediations of Marcus Aurelius - do they count?
 
Are our morals a product of consciousness or the subconscious?
 
2:14 PM
I think of philosophy as large tent where lots can be discussed unlike other, more specialised fields...
 
Online seminars can be nice to get an idea, but I am one of the people that think you have to get into an actual interpersonal discussion about things (like, bodily). Otherwise, authenticity and mutual understanding are just so much worse
 
@MoziburUllah I like that analogy
Anyway, gotta split. Gotta get ready for work. See y'all later.
 
@ZaneScheepers: Both in my understanding, but depends pretty much on your definition of consciousness. For me, consciousness is much more than what you happen to represent at any given time.
Bye, have fun :P
 
@PhilipKlöcking: I tend to agree - embodiment is important for authenticity. Maybe online stuff as an addendum.
yeah, I've got to go now; my file has just finished down-loading...see y'all later!
 
@MoziburUllah: Student reading groups are a nice addendum for the standard curriculum. A necessary one, even, if you want to truly have a broad education
See ya!
 
 
4 hours later…
6:49 PM
Yeah, I would think so - I've never been involved in a reading group outside of a classroom though.
 
 
4 hours later…
10:20 PM
Someone commented answered my question with "(computers) can get more resolution than reality". It sounds like an indefensible position.
 
10:49 PM
agreed, computers have to make trade-offs between size and precision
when representing numbers
The IEEE Standard for Floating-Point Arithmetic (IEEE 754) is a technical standard for floating-point computation established in 1985 by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). The standard addressed many problems found in the diverse floating point implementations that made them difficult to use reliably and portably. Many hardware floating point units now use the IEEE 754 standard. The standard defines: arithmetic formats: sets of binary and decimal floating-point data, which consist of finite numbers (including signed zeros and subnormal numbers), infinities, and special...
this video is really great on this
(pbs' infinite series, "why computers are bad at algebra")
 
Any representation is an abstraction. It is in the very idea of representation that it cannot contain as much information as that what it represents.
 
11:06 PM
Neural networks can be formed with "bottlenecks" to force them to 'invent' simpler, more sign-like elements
They can help with interpreting what the system is doing, compelling it to make use of a sort of internal language, which can be kind of deciphered (almost 'hieroglyphically' in the case of visual-task convolution topologies)
Otherwise they're very obscure, since they're a complicated mesh of super-optimized interconnections, each with a numerical weight -- like trying to read a mind from a brainscan
(Although you can get pretty far with this sort of reverse-engineering -- this is the neuron that corresponds with 'sky' or 'cat'...)
But hopefully systems of the future will be better able to explain themselves, to reason about their own results
 

« first day (2374 days earlier)      last day (43 days later) »