Really, the issue of "experiencing the color red' is pretty much irrelevant. The perception of red as opposed to green serves as a purpose. To seek a deeper or hidden meaning behind it is to grasp at shadows, it's as simple as that.
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Krimel <[email protected]> wrote: > Marsha > HOW does science deal with experiencing the color red? Does science > produce certainty or meaning about experiencing the color red? > > [Krimel] > By the 1870's a lot of people were asking similar questions in a variety of > ways. Descartes, the British Empiricists, Kant, Hegel and Nietzsche had all > had their say. The gross anatomy of the brain had been established and the > major pathways of sensation (input) and motor function (output) were known. > The effects of various kinds of damage to almost all of the nervous system > had been demonstrated in humans and in animals. Camilio Golgi had developed > staining methods that were giving researchers their first glimpses of the > details of intercellular structure. > > These two different approaches; the phenomenological analysis of experience > and the study of physiology; both aimed at understanding what makes us tick. > While there was no doubt some overlap and synthesis these approaches were > heading in different directions. > > In 1874 Wilhelm Wundt wrote the first text book on psychology, "Principles > of Physiological Psychology." In the first paragraph he says this: > > "The title of the present work is in itself a sufficiently clear indication > of the contents. In it, the attempt is made to show the connexion between > two sciences whose subject-matters are closely interrelated, but which have, > for the most part, followed wholly divergent paths. Physiology and > psychology cover, between them, the field of vital phenomena; they deal with > the facts of life at large, and in particular with the facts of human life. > Physiology is concerned with all those phenomena of life that present > themselves to us in sense perception as bodily processes, and accordingly > form part of that total environment which we name the external world. > Psychology, on the other hand, seeks to give account of the interconnexion > of processes which are evinced by our own consciousness, or which we infer > from such manifestations of the bodily life in other creatures as indicate > the presence of a consciousness similar to our own." > > He claimed the neither path was alone sufficient. It only made sense to > focus on the areas of overlap. Did physiology produce phenomenology? Or was > physiology only a artifact of some kind of higher order relationships? How > could you tell the difference? > > In 1890 William James published his massive 1400 page, "The Principles of > Psychology." In the introduction he says this: > > "But the slightest reflection shows that phenomena have absolutely no power > to influence our ideas until they have first impressed our senses and our > brain. The bare existence of a past fact is no ground for our remembering > it. Unless we have seen it, or somehow undergone it, we shall never know of > its having been. The experiences of the body are thus one of the conditions > of the faculty of memory being what it is. And a very small amount of > reflection on facts shows that one part of the body, namely, the brain, is > the part whose experiences are directly concerned." > > In 1879 Wundt opened the first laboratory for the scientific study of > psychology. He began following the path of Gustav Fechtner who had begun the > study of what he called psychophysics. The concern was to establish what > could be known about things like: "what IS the experience of red?" > > They looked at things like how much light must be present for you to see > it? How much brighter does it have to get for you to notice? Which > wavelengths of light can we see? What names do we ascribe to which bands of > color? How blue does red have to be before you call it purple? > > The questions and hypotheses multiply like bunny's. Pirsig's Law holds that > "The number of rational hypotheses that can explain any given phenomenon is > infinite." People began asking all kinds of red related questions. Do people > act differently in a red room than a blue one? Do more people like red than > green? Would people be more likely to buy chocolate wrapped in dark red or > pink? > > We learned that as people age, changes in the lens of the eye shift our > sensitivity to different shades of color. These shifts happen gradually and > we can't even tell. People had noticed that the French painter Claude > Monet's included more and more red as he grew older. At age 82 he had > cataract surgery to save his failing vision. When his first eye recovered he > noticed a huge change in the color. He painted the same scene with first one > eye and then the other shut and there was a big difference in the shades he > used. He looked back at all of the red in his work and wanted to repaint or > discard some of it. > > Does any of that help produce certainty or meaning about experiencing the > color red? I think it does but I guess it depends on how you would like the > experience of the color of red to be dealt with. > > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
