Newsgroups: comp.ai.alife,comp.ai.philsophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!MathWorks.Com!udel!gatech!swrinde!news.dell.com!tadpole.com!uunet!uunet.ca!uunet.ca!tsltor!jiml
From: jiml@dragon.teleride.on.ca (Jim Lai)
Subject: Re: On the color of "red" (was: Re: The Meaning of Life)
Message-ID: <CwEsKr.3Fu@teleride.on.ca>
Followup-To: comp.ai.philosophy
Keywords: dabbling, theory of science, artificial colors, holism vs reductionism
Sender: news@teleride.on.ca (TSL Toronto Usenet News)
Organization: Self
References: <35d8uo$q5k@germany.eu.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 1994 03:34:03 GMT
Lines: 108

In article <35d8uo$q5k@germany.eu.net>,
Jrg Heitktter <jh@Germany.EU.net> wrote:
>But seriously, now that you come up with the definiton of colors, well,
>there's a nice story to tell about what constitutes a color, that perfectly
>fits in here. Since it also shows the different views on the world held
>by (a) reductionist = Newtonians; and (b) holistic thinkers, e.g. Goethe.
>
>I submit there cannot be an objective way to judge who's right or wrong;
>(and this discussion belongs into alt.philosophy.objectivism, anyways;)
>BUT, I think it's worthwhile to explore these two fundamental views.

Hm.  There is a third camp that could be argued here: (c) pragmatic.
I'll illustrate why.

>Johann Wolfgang von Goethe once wrote an (obscure) book on color theory,
>entitled "Zr Farbenlehre" [1,2] in which he reports some experiments
>with prisms. [...]
>
>In the Newtonian view of the world, a prism splits white light into it's
>basic components (colors), that are represented by diverse frequencies.
[...]
>
>Hence Goether argues that color is a matter of perception:

>These writings were later "rediscovered" by Mitchell Feigenbaum, then
>seaching for what is now called "boundary conditions." He proved Goethe
>being right, since color is not an objective quantity, since "Redness"
>is not a particular bandwidth of light, (as the Newtonians would have
>it), but a territory of a chaotic universe; the boundaries of this
>universe are still not that easy to describe. (Although any Physicist
>reading this would say that's not true: red is light radiating in
>waves between 620-800 billions of a meter. And that's it.
>That's what they've been told in school.)

Not true.  Red for a physicist is only in the context of physics, not
perception.  I'm sure any objectivist would agree on that.  It is clear
that your definition is only that of spectral red.  It is possible to
generate spectral distributions that appear red which include frequencies
from across the entire spectrum.  The reduction from spectral frequencies
to tristimulus values (a 3-vector corresponding to the stimulation of the
red, green, and blue cones in a standard observer) is known experimentally.

>So, Goethe makes a distinction of "hard physical reality and the variable
>subjective perception of it. The colors we perceive vary from time to time
>and from person to person--that much is easy to say."[3]
>(And is "well in line" with recent findings of phychologists, btw.)

However, if there is no point of agreement, there is little use in speaking
of "redness".  Despite the variance in color perception from individual, it
is valuable to have an approximation function from which once can measure
color and color difference.

>	"It was the perception of color, to Goethe, that was universal on
>objective. What scientific evidence was there for a definable real-world
>quality of redness independent of our perception?" [3]

As a result, the standards CIELAB and CIELUV have been proposed by the
CIE, as well as the OSA Uniform Color Space.  Admittedly these do not take
into account all the possible factors a change in the background (i.e.
context) of the color being perceived.  These are based on the concept of
the statistically "normal" observer, a useful myth/generalization.  Very
pragmatic, this meeting between the two extreme viewpoints you painted.
And these artificial constructs allow us to estimate the redness of a pure
color in standardized observation conditions without directly perceiving
it with human eyes.  Under these conditions, the maximum apparent redness
of any color can be derived.  It does turn out that a sufficient intensity
of spectral red is the reddest red possible under any given illumination.
Then there's Pantone(TM) if you want color samples sans mathematical
relations --- an industrial standard set by fiat.

So given either the human-subjective or the physically-grounded definition
of color, we can still approach it with a modified reductionism.  I honestly
don't see the split between the two camps as you describe except in the
desired context of color, as there is definitely theory connecting the two.

>What fascinates me most in Alife is the attraction of so many distinct
>fields of research that clash into each other in this melting pot
>of sciences; at least, I'd like to see it becoming a melting pot of
>sciences, where the traditional boundaries fade...and we get back to a
>state that was; the unity of all sciences.

Oh.  Maybe I assisted your point after all.  Or perhaps your traditional
boundaries have already been crossed.

>So, if anybody out there could provide me with an idea on how to assemble a
>holistic picture of our (scientific) world other than by "dabbling"; I'd
>like to hear more about it. But I fear, there is none?

It sounds simple to me.  Study wildly varying fields and spend time
thinking on how to relate them.  If there were an obvious algorithm,
holism would be trivial.  For example, look at quantum mechanics and
chemistry, then be amazed as the encoding of a gene can radically alter
the effectiveness of hemoglobin as molecular distances are modified, and
how interaction with surrounding molecules can improve oxygen throughput.
And then realize that evolution has apparently provided several points in
the system where local optimization can occur, leading to a highly
efficient solution.  (Though of course it is not guaranteed to be a
globally optimal solution.)  Perhaps this might even suggest that a
"proper" neural network architecture should contain several points where
local optimization can be independently performed.  It's certainly dubious
at best that the human brain is a globally-optimized system, after all.

There's lots of connections these days.  As more and more basic ground
is covered, the areas of knowledge which cross fields will become more
populated with researchers.

Jim W. Lai
(as featured in Wired 2.10 --- well, ok, featured is a bit strong...)
