been pondering for a while the possibility that the capacity for this is somewhat in and from feeling the resistance and obstructions to it

having thoughts about thinking seems like a straightforward enough idea

it’s tempting to think there is no alien cognitive territory, human fluid intelligence can understand fairly much anything, but when a computational apparatus turns to understanding its own workings, processes, clearly it’s a special category of work

I string some words together using English, you understand the English, we comprehend the concepts, agreement might be had, or not

what if self-aware consciousness is in some edge effect of thinking about thinking, sensing cognitive obstructions

I think everyone to some extent limits thinking about thinking, certainly there are forces or influences at group level that functionally facilitate or accommodate the limits, ideology might be said to lend to such a thing, even miniature ideologies delivered by single words, phrases and whatever

by edge I more mean a threshold, perhaps a soft threshold, and over and beyond a state change occurs

I have a few other ideas regard but am not in the mood to word them right this moment

so you reckon you’re a strange loop

SCIENCE said:

so you reckon you’re a strange loop

I know I am.

Which reminded me of these loopy anagrams

I was reading the other day about animals that see colour with 8 types of cone, and people who have 4, and it occurred to me that I have no concept of what extra colours might look like.

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

so you reckon you’re a strange loop

I know I am.

Which reminded me of these loopy anagrams

I was reading the other day about animals that see colour with 8 types of cone, and people who have 4, and it occurred to me that I have no concept of what extra colours might look like.

Well there you go.

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

so you reckon you’re a strange loop

I know I am.

Which reminded me of these loopy anagrams

I was reading the other day about animals that see colour with 8 types of cone, and people who have 4, and it occurred to me that I have no concept of what extra colours might look like.

you don’t see extra colours as such just the ability to discern shades of certain colours more finely.

https://www.metro.us/vision-test-how-many-cones-do-you-have-in-your-eye/

JudgeMental said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

so you reckon you’re a strange loop

I know I am.

Which reminded me of these loopy anagrams

I was reading the other day about animals that see colour with 8 types of cone, and people who have 4, and it occurred to me that I have no concept of what extra colours might look like.

you don’t see extra colours as such just the ability to discern shades of certain colours more finely.

https://www.metro.us/vision-test-how-many-cones-do-you-have-in-your-eye/

That’s the thing though, if you want to see what extra colours look like, eyes is not the type of cones you’re going for.

SCIENCE said:

JudgeMental said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I know I am.

Which reminded me of these loopy anagrams

I was reading the other day about animals that see colour with 8 types of cone, and people who have 4, and it occurred to me that I have no concept of what extra colours might look like.

you don’t see extra colours as such just the ability to discern shades of certain colours more finely.

https://www.metro.us/vision-test-how-many-cones-do-you-have-in-your-eye/

What is the difference between discerning additional shades and seeing additional colours?

SCIENCE said:

That’s the thing though, if you want to see what extra colours look like, eyes is not the type of cones you’re going for.

Why not?

People with more cone types can see more colours (or shades, if you prefer).

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

JudgeMental said:

you don’t see extra colours as such just the ability to discern shades of certain colours more finely.

https://www.metro.us/vision-test-how-many-cones-do-you-have-in-your-eye/

What is the difference between discerning additional shades and seeing additional colours?

SCIENCE said:

That’s the thing though, if you want to see what extra colours look like, eyes is not the type of cones you’re going for.

Why not?

People with more cone types can see more colours (or shades, if you prefer).

because shades are different colours.

JudgeMental said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

What is the difference between discerning additional shades and seeing additional colours?

SCIENCE said:

That’s the thing though, if you want to see what extra colours look like, eyes is not the type of cones you’re going for.

Why not?

People with more cone types can see more colours (or shades, if you prefer).

because shades are different colours.

The quote indents have got a bit confusing.

So we’re all agreed then, seeing additional “tones” is seeing more “colours”?

The Rev Dodgson said:

JudgeMental said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Why not?

People with more cone types can see more colours (or shades, if you prefer).

because shades are different colours.

Try again:

The quote indents have got a bit confusing.

So we’re all agreed then, seeing additional “tones” is seeing more “colours”?

JudgeMental said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

What is the difference between discerning additional shades and seeing additional colours?

SCIENCE said:

That’s the thing though, if you want to see what extra colours look like, eyes is not the type of cones you’re going for.

Why not?

People with more cone types can see more colours (or shades, if you prefer).

because shades are different colours.

sorry, should be a not in these.

JudgeMental said:

JudgeMental said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Why not?

People with more cone types can see more colours (or shades, if you prefer).

because shades are different colours.

sorry, should be a not in these.

I read it as being intended to be there.

JudgeMental said:

JudgeMental said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Why not?

People with more cone types can see more colours (or shades, if you prefer).

because shades are different colours.

sorry, should be a not in these.

OK, if you like, so where I have said “colours” substitute “shades”.

The Rev Dodgson said:

JudgeMental said:

JudgeMental said:

because shades are different colours.

sorry, should be a not in these.

OK, if you like, so where I have said “colours” substitute “shades”.

50 + of them?

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

JudgeMental said:

sorry, should be a not in these.

OK, if you like, so where I have said “colours” substitute “shades”.

50 + of them?

Well there are 50 shades of grey. Book, movie & everything.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

JudgeMental said:

sorry, should be a not in these.

OK, if you like, so where I have said “colours” substitute “shades”.

50 + of them?

Yes, well over 50.

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

JudgeMental said:

Try again:

The quote indents have got a bit confusing.

So we’re all agreed then, seeing additional “tones” is seeing more “colours”?

Birds can see additional tones and more colours..

Bird vision studies have surprised experts. Not only do birds perceive familiar colors, but they also can see colors that are part of the ultraviolet, or UV, spectrum. Because of its ability to see these additional shades of color, the bird’s eye has far better visual acuity than the human eye.

sorry we were joking about cones and not intending it to be serious

for the serious bit we suppose the best definitive way to characterise the full possible range colours would be to analyse spectrophotometeric distributions

SCIENCE said:

sorry we were joking about cones and not intending it to be serious

for the serious bit we suppose the best definitive way to characterise the full possible range colours would be to analyse spectrophotometeric distributions

yeah but, they are just wavelengths of emr we assign colours to.

SCIENCE said:

sorry we were joking about cones and not intending it to be serious

for the serious bit we suppose the best definitive way to characterise the full possible range colours would be to analyse spectrophotometeric distributions

Regardless of how we characterise distributions, we don’t know how they look when observed with a different number of cone types, was my point related to transitions original post.

Ian said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Try again:

The quote indents have got a bit confusing.

So we’re all agreed then, seeing additional “tones” is seeing more “colours”?

Birds can see additional tones and more colours..

Bird vision studies have surprised experts. Not only do birds perceive familiar colors, but they also can see colors that are part of the ultraviolet, or UV, spectrum. Because of its ability to see these additional shades of color, the bird’s eye has far better visual acuity than the human eye.

Acuity is not related to the photopigment but the the number of receptors per square area. The fovea has many more receptors packed in, so has better acuity. You are probably really talking about the processed seeing ability here, which combines acuity and sensitivity (to wavelength and to brightness)

buffy said:

Ian said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Birds can see additional tones and more colours..

Bird vision studies have surprised experts. Not only do birds perceive familiar colors, but they also can see colors that are part of the ultraviolet, or UV, spectrum. Because of its ability to see these additional shades of color, the bird’s eye has far better visual acuity than the human eye.

Acuity is not related to the photopigment but the the number of receptors per square area. The fovea has many more receptors packed in, so has better acuity. You are probably really talking about the processed seeing ability here, which combines acuity and sensitivity (to wavelength and to brightness)

Where the discussion is going off the rails is
people not differentiating between the proper terminology
when discussing Color Theory between colors = hue, tint and shade

in addition to what he accept as Color some birds, insects and animals are more
sensitive to wavelength and to brightness beyond the range of normal human perception
(such as infrared and ultraviolet)

but I was interested in the original topic concept of “thinking about thinking”
…and please don’t take this the wrong way, but…
have you ever experienced psychedelic “drugs”? and the differences one experiences
regarding perception … in addition to seeing colors as you’ve never seen them previously?…
or the perception of movement as objects seem to sparkle, crawl and meld together?
…but most especially the concept of “thinking about thinking” that is widely accepted as
“changing your concepts and perception” for the rest of one’s life? most famously the concept
of Universal “ONEness” that spawned fhe Peace Movement and today’s Environmentalism.

Ogmog said:

Where the discussion is going off the rails is
people not differentiating between the proper terminology
when discussing Color Theory between colors = hue, tint and shade

real life colour mixing is a little different. adding black to “darken” a colour is not very good. Black will make the colour look “dirty”. far better mixing in a colour on the opposite side of the colour wheel. In printing we have two whites, opaque and transparent. they will give different results to a colour.

JudgeMental said:

Ogmog said:

Where the discussion is going off the rails is
people not differentiating between the proper terminology
when discussing Color Theory between colors = hue, tint and shade

real life colour mixing is a little different. adding black to “darken” a colour is not very good. Black will make the colour look “dirty”. far better mixing in a colour on the opposite side of the colour wheel. In printing we have two whites, opaque and transparent. they will give different results to a colour.

plus you put the wrong URL in your link.

JudgeMental said:

JudgeMental said:

Ogmog said:

Where the discussion is going off the rails is
people not differentiating between the proper terminology
when discussing Color Theory between colors = hue, tint and shade

real life colour mixing is a little different. adding black to “darken” a colour is not very good. Black will make the colour look “dirty”. far better mixing in a colour on the opposite side of the colour wheel. In printing we have two whites, opaque and transparent. they will give different results to a colour.

plus you put the wrong URL in your link.

intended

SCIENCE said:

JudgeMental said:

JudgeMental said:

real life colour mixing is a little different. adding black to “darken” a colour is not very good. Black will make the colour look “dirty”. far better mixing in a colour on the opposite side of the colour wheel. In printing we have two whites, opaque and transparent. they will give different results to a colour.

plus you put the wrong URL in your link.

intended

lol i jest bin Rick Rolled

JudgeMental said:

JudgeMental said:

Ogmog said:

Where the discussion is going off the rails is
people not differentiating between the proper terminology
when discussing Color Theory between colors = hue, tint and shade

real life colour mixing is a little different. adding black to “darken” a colour is not very good. Black will make the colour look “dirty”. far better mixing in a colour on the opposite side of the colour wheel. In printing we have two whites, opaque and transparent. they will give different results to a colour.

plus you put the wrong URL in your link.

so solly
linky fixt
https://www.craftsy.com/post/hues-tints-tones-and-shades/

JudgeMental said:

Ogmog said:

Where the discussion is going off the rails is
people not differentiating between the proper terminology
when discussing Color Theory between colors = hue, tint and shade

real life colour mixing is a little different. adding black to “darken” a colour is not very good. Black will make the colour look “dirty”. far better mixing in a colour on the opposite side of the colour wheel. In printing we have two whites, opaque and transparent. they will give different results to a colour.

As you know colour is two distinct things when you differentiate between mixing light & pigment.
When you’re discussing LIGHT: ALL Colours of the Spectrum Combined result in White Light
whereas BLACK is thought of as The TOTAL Absence of Colour
With Pigments, WHITE is the Absence of Colour and BLACK results from All Colours Combined.

However, there’s an important difference in the PROPORTIONS of the colours combined when
using the Opposite (Complimentary) Colours, resulting in various temperatures of Brown
since mixing Primaries w/Secondaries are especially important when portrait painting.

…but the topic is “Thinking About Thinking”
not just the perception of color (or lack thereof)

………?

Ogmog said:

…but the topic is “Thinking About Thinking”
not just the perception of color (or lack thereof)

………?

That’s what my first post was supposed to be about as well, but if people prefer to talk about something else that’s OK with me.

Over thinking about over thinking?

roughbarked said:

Over thinking about over thinking?

I’d say under.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

Over thinking about over thinking?

I’d say under.

Fair.

From Doc Smith, 1965.

“Verne, I have been thinking,” he announced, as he coiled all but about six feet of his sinuous length into a tight spiral upon the rug and thrust out half a dozen weirdly stalked eyes.

“That’s nothing new,” Thorndyke countered. No human mind can sympathize with or even remotely understand the Velantian passion for solid thought. “What about this time? The whichness of the why?”

“I have been thinking about thought…”

“So what?” the technician derided. “That’s even worse. That’s a logarithmic spiral if there ever was one.”

mollwollfumble said:

From Doc Smith, 1965.

“Verne, I have been thinking,” he announced, as he coiled all but about six feet of his sinuous length into a tight spiral upon the rug and thrust out half a dozen weirdly stalked eyes.

“That’s nothing new,” Thorndyke countered. No human mind can sympathize with or even remotely understand the Velantian passion for solid thought. “What about this time? The whichness of the why?”

“I have been thinking about thought…”

“So what?” the technician derided. “That’s even worse. That’s a logarithmic spiral if there ever was one.”

A pretty darn good sci-fi series.