The Hidden Colors of the World We See

[leon1127]

i always think that the real colour of the world we see is not the same as what we observe.
for example, the glass is brown colour in the world, but it becomes green when our brain processes the image.

 

[nameless]

Hi Leon. There is no 'real color out there'. The only place that color 'exists' is in your mind. There is no 'light' 'out there'. There is only 'light' in your mind. Your 'reality' is (in) your mind. Your universe is (in) your mind. There is no 'out there' out there.
If it looks green to you, it IS green, in 'your' universe, the 'real' color is green.

 

[mezarashi]

Oh yes I agree. There is a 'reality' out there, but this reality only comes to us through our own perceptions. How we perceive the things around us is vital to how we interpret our world.

And a note on color. Color is a very human thing. Some animals don't even see color. The concepts of red and green and blue. Visible light, is after all only a part of the entire electromagnetic spectrum. What if we were able to see ultravoilet or infared? Or what if we couldn't see green or red.

 

[bomba923]

Hmm... wasn't this already brought up in this thread??

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=84558

 

[Rade]

The real color wavelengths (let real color = C) of the world you see (if you = Y) is a color quantum superposition of [C + Y] that is present within the neurons of your mind (how this is so, the mechanism, is not yet known). The real color wavelengths of the world I see (if I = I) is [C + I]. Thus, you and I will always perceive the real color wavelengths of the world differently as differ "colors", for the simple reason that the ways the quantum wavefunctions of real light frequencies interact with your neurons will differ from mine for genetic reasons. But, this does not mean that the "real color wavelengths" do not exist independently of you and me. They must, otherwise there would be nothing for either you or me to put into our minds to call "color". In other words, the mind does not create "real color", it creates "color" (real color wavelengths in the universe existed long before any minds evolved to perceive it)...the mind perceives real color wavelengths and then integrates that which is perceived into a "concept" called "color" quantum wave functions. Now of course, in for example a dream state, the mind can take that which it has already integrated as "color" quantum wave functions into very strange patterns indeed (also in a drug induced state).

 

[nameless]

But, this does not mean that the "real color wavelengths" do not exist independently of you and me. They must, otherwise there would be nothing for either you or me to put into our minds to call "color".

Actually, it doesn't 'prove' that anything has any existence beyond 'mind', either.
For an alternate perspective to your limited assertion would be this copied post of mine from page 2 of Bomba's link above.
It's short so I'll risk repetition;

I would describe 'color' as;
the mind's interpertation of specifically coded 'information' that the 'eye' transmits from the colapsed quantons (quantum information/probability/possibility waves (a.k.a. Mind)) to the brain..
Other senses can also perceive this programming.
There is nothing like a 'color-thing' actually out there! Just 'program code' from the collapsed waves, via sensory 'perception' to the 'central processing unit' (CPU), the 'brain/mind' to convert and manifest into our concepts of the 'material' omniverse.

On second thought, this 'definition' would apply to the entire apparent panoply of manifested omniversal phenomena.

 

[Rade]

Actually, it doesn't 'prove' that anything has any existence beyond 'mind', either. [/I]

There you go with the word "prove" again (see thread on can you prove you exist)--were do I use the word "prove" in my post ? What I offer is a hypothesis, not a proof. So, my question, do you think that your definition of "color" offers some "proof" of something concerning "what is out-there"--since you seem to hold "proof" in such high reguard ? Then if you could please provide your "proof" that "out-there" does not exist, so that I can better understand your arguments from proof.

 

[nameless]

There you go with the word "prove" again (see thread on can you prove you exist)--were do I use the word "prove" in my post ? What I offer is a hypothesis, not a proof. So, my question, do you think that your definition of "color" offers some "proof" of something concerning "what is out-there"--since you seem to hold "proof" in such high reguard ? Then if you could please provide your "proof" that "out-there" does not exist, so that I can better understand your arguments from proof.

You are right, Rade.
Perhaps 'prove' is a poor choice of words here. I'll not use it again (cant anyway, you used up the last 8 of them in your post! *__- ) Nothing can be absolutely 'proven'. I can't, you can't.
Lets be fair. How about showing 'evidence'?
Can you show any real evidence that there exists anything 'out there', beyond 'mind'?
If you cannot, then that is sufficient 'evidence' in itself that perhaps nothing 'exists out there'. At least the 'lack' of evidence points in that counterintuitive direction.
You asked me to 'prove' a negative, that something 'doesn't exist'; we all know that this is an impossible task. Only a 'positive' can be positively 'evidenced'.

So, if you can 'uphold' your assertion that there are actually 'things' 'out there', independent of all subjectivity, of mind, I'm willing to listen.
Personally, I don't think that you can. No one has before.

Furthermore, I noticed no comment whatsoever on my 'offering' above regarding the definition of 'color', just a bunch of hand waving re: my poor choice of wording. The meaning remains the same.

Perhaps, again, the bottom line will be that we will choose what to 'believe' for whatever personal reasons, 'logic' being only one of them.
Maybe due to the massively counterintuitive content of my perspective, it is beyond the ability of many to cogitate upon it seriously. It makes heads hurt sometimes.

 

[octelcogopod]

nameless but what's your point?
There is no difference between a world where "nothing is out there", and a world where it is.
The same rules still apply, because in the end, only one world exists.

 

[sameandnot]

"i" can prove to myself that my self exist. "i" can find out what "i" am. "i" cannot "prove" "my" existence to "you". "i" cannot "prove" that "you" or any thing else is "out there"/outside of my mind. nameless' point, i believe, is, essentially, to put it in such words: when you die, as with when you live, you are free to believe whatever you want. that is your choice, and there is no truly reasonable fact to object otherwise. It is what It is, and It is all contained within You. That is the reality of our experience.

so, now we will accept that there is a world, and that we share this world. the mind will give innumerable descriptions and explanations and rationalizations and theories and the like, but we must acknowledge that the symbol that represents a thing is not the thing itself, nor can the symbol adequately define (as in, contain the totality of the thing, in it's wholeness, in a definition), as the thing is greater than the symbol used to define it. a definition is composed around the most apparent properties/qualities.
what is, is not in time. time is the quality of the mind. thought can never touch the truth of what is, as the thought immediately becomes the "what was". when thought is projected into the "future" it is the "what will be". so we see that the mind is confined to being the what was, or the what will/might/could be. so never, when the mind is engaged in symbolic reasonings, can it ever touch the reality. truth is perceived without the mind, as pure awareness, without a thought.

so, no matter how you look at it, it is either All you, as contained in the mind, in which case, there is no need for thought/judgment.

or, there is a world, and the only way to touch the truth of it is to go beyond thought, in which case there is no thinking.

in either way, the truth is understood by direct perception, or perfect awareness. and in both cases, this means the negation of the ego-mind.

all perception based in ego-based thought, in any "reality" is delusion, based on illusion.

to ignore what is, is to be ignorant. living in the dream of individuality, is to ignore reality. living in ignorance leads to doubt and fear. as in, "i doubt my perception of reality is "right" or is in accord with some "objective truth" of reality."

maybe this has been too many words... surely it has. those ripe of mind will understand, those unripe of mind will have difficulty and even contempt and defenses, but that's all part of the trip... until they are understood to be excessive and unnecessary. it's like a dream person defending his dream image/idea.

 

[nameless]

nameless but what's your point?
There is no difference between a world where "nothing is out there", and a world where it is.
The same rules still apply, because in the end, only one world exists.

Point? I think that my 'point' would be to respond to the thread topic in an honest manner displaying the 'fruits' of my current perspective that I feel might be of value to an occassional brave 'psychonaut' in search of Truth.

Yes, there IS a difference. The difference is the difference between sleeping while accepting that dream as 'Reality', and becoming Lucid, Awakening within the Dream. Should Lucidity be achieved, the 'difference' is monumental. I guess that you just have to be there.

All the same 'rules' do not necessarily apply. Some 'rules' can be bent; some can be broken; just like in the dream allegory/parallel.

And no matter how forcefully or definitively you wish to assert that "in the end, only one world exists" don't make it so! It is certainly not the case in my experience. Ask any group of two or more people to describe, in depth, their Reality and watch how quickly arguments and attacks and blatant variations occur. Are all 'incorrect' but one? Are all 'correct'? If you ask each one, he'll tell you that 'he' is the correct 'view'. Are none correct?
You cannot leave the subjectivity behind until you leave the egoically run body centered consciousness behind. 'Till consciousness is 'accessed' beyond the 'personality'. Of course, the greater the Consciousness accessed, the less of 'individual and separate you' is there, 'in the way'. There is an inverse relationship between Truth/Reality and an individualistic isolated egoic 'self'. Perhaps like Truth, Consciousness is not 'found and possessed', one BECOMES Truth! One BECOMES Consciousness. The 'ego' (maintaining the delusion of seperation, of 'boundaries'..) is a very efficient 'reducing valve' for Consciousness.

Unless one is so retarded, so lacking in cognitive function, so intellectually disfunctional that one has no choice but to imbibe their entire 'Reality/Truth' from the 'teachings of others'! And I have not seen evidence that this can be completely done. It is partially done by all, to one extent or another, though.

There is no evidence of a 'one-size-fits-all' world.