Stabilities, Repetitions, & Confirmability

By Herb Wiggins, M.D.; Clinical Neurosciences; Discoverer/Creator of the Comparison Process/CP Theory/Model; 14 Mar. 2014

 

“The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.”
.
“The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility.”  –Albert Einstein “Physics and Reality” 1936
.
“Found your house upon the rock. For the winds and storms may come but it will endure.”  –Traditional wisdom
.
The “Three Little Pigs” story, about the houses built of straw, sticks of wood, versus the brick house. —Traditional wisdom
.

Part and parcel of complex systems are stabilities which those generate among their complexities. These are repeating events in our local and even, in the case of stars and emission lines and gravitational forces, can be universal. Our brains can “cut the Gordian Knot” of complexities and see more of what’s actually going on in the system. It’s this human characteristic, shared in simpler ways by the other animals and even some plants, which can note stable events in their environments, such as trees, rocks, streams, and the branching of the trees where in their nests lie, and can put these into their long term memories (LTM), and then constantly refer to them and recognize them to ID and thus use those for navigation around their territories. Indeed, territoriality must needs, by necessarily strongly imply recognition of landmarks by ANY species which is observably territorial. Thus LTM and comparison processes (CP) go hand in hand, regardless of which animals or species, or even plants demonstrate such interactions with environments.

.

 Using the same, or analogous systems of recognition they learn to recognize same species, their mates, food, dangers such as predators, sudden heavy rain storms, and so forth. Plants know their own pollens, and can often identify, as in the special case of fireweed, the best times to grow. In springtime plants know by recognition of temps, rains, and related patterns when to germinate seeds, or grow out leaves, and set flowers. In this way, they make use of their environment, because stabilities naturally occur by repeated reinforcements into their LTM’s of whatever kinds being used.

.

Einstein asked a very serious and critical question when he asked how does the capacity to understand the universe come about? IOW, how is it that we can comprehend events in the universe?  This article gives insights into the neural, higher level mechanisms of how this comes about. It’s the very repetitiveness of the day/night cycles, the tides, the moon rising and setting. the full moon versus the other moon phases, &  the seasons,which impress themselves upon the day to day and year to year physiology and behaviors of plants and animals, of all sorts.
.
He also described the relationships of events as to their connections to other events. This is a sort of relativity in and of itself as well. It’s the foundation of this article that relativity arises as a form of the comparison process, which comparison process allows us to ID, and repetitively recognize events in existence, which are stable, largely. The more often repeating events are detected, the more likely those will pass by process of reinforcements into the nervous systems and similarly physiological systems of plants.  The self evident facts that there ARE such stable events all around us, are the events which make the universe comprehensible. If “all was change”, from moment to moment there would be no constancy of events, and these are what makes the universe comprehensible. It’s the observable, provable organization of the universe which makes it comprehensible. Order creates comprehension/understanding.
.
Further, we note the major differences between scientific evidence and proofs versus those of historical, genealogical and legal events. The latter three are rarely repeating, except in general forms, such as humans, which have huge variability and rarely if ever are repeated themselves exactly. IN contrast the sciences concern themselves with provable, repeating, exactly specified events, such as atoms, elements, isotopes, molecules, organic and biological structures, which are often repeating in their general forms, although few are exactly alike.
.
Take the proton for instance. It exists theoretically as the same proton within an atom, or molecule, or nucleus, or as a free ion such as acid solutions. Yet none of them are EXACTLY, or absolutely the same, but exist in a multiplicity of forms, most all arising from a proton which is nearly the same. Still, NO proton, for the reason of the Fermion rule, can occupy the same space at the same time. Thus, the positions of protons are all and must be different. Their relationships to nuclei, atoms, molecules, and such are definitely different, yet we believe that, essentially, the proton is of the same type, regardless of where it’s found. Though it has many manifestations and types, as described above.
.
Now compare this with a single human. He/she is unique, and even ID twins are not the same, for the simple fermion rule. Thus there is NO true identity in terms of position, although of structures they are assumed to be similar even in nuclear and molecular and ionic compositions. Thus although it’s assumed and likely true that protons in a nucleus are all the same, they do differ by position. And further, the nuclei of those atoms below Fe56 can lose energy by fusions, whereas those above, cannot, and require more energy to create them. Thus the U-235 atom has been coaxed by specific neutrons to fission and release energy, but only to a certain point. This finding of neutron emission by fissile U-235 is what created the nuclear chain reaction, which is a repeating, stable finding wherever the conditions are right.
.
Now contrast this with a single human being, who is very likely unique, but note the vast variations possibly in the trillions of those beings which can be considered “humans”.
.
Now, let us look at our logic, and how that works.
.
All humans are mortal.
Socrates is human.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
.
This is a logical, deductive syllogism, and necessarily true, though is it? As long as the categories are fixed, relatively and stable, we can perform acts of logical deduction with them. But what of the conundrum, which came first, the chicken or the egg?
.
This paradox arises because of categorical confusions and inexactitudes, as most paradoxes show. & their solutions arise when we deny the absolute “identity” of members of the class, category, or word meaning. The point here means something very clearly. If all chickens are the same, it’s true. If all eggs are the same, it’s true paradox. BUT,& this is the veriest point, they are NOT all the same. Evolutionary model shows us that at one time there were not chickens, which became chickens. So clearly, if we define the genetics of a chicken rather precisely, there were at one time, “not quite” chickens, which mated, and the egg had the first full complement of genetics and phenotypic characteristics of what we’d call, ID, recognize, understand and categorize as a “:chicken.” Thus, the egg came first.  QED. This shows the problems with categories which are rather fuzzy in many cases, and the semantic problems which can arise due to this fuzziness, or false assumption of complete identity, which in the case of “ALL mortals”, does not exist.
.
The problem with logic is the assumption of identities of the events, which they do not have. Thus most all logic is not quite true, because the assumption is that all grass is, when healthy, green, is not necessarily the case. The categories, are shown thusly to be “fuzzy” and not well defined. Within those tight definitions of “humans” the logics are said to be very solid. But in fact, it’s not. The universe of events contrasts, contradicts and often gives us paradox when we try to impose this utter absolute and fixedness upon events. The idealisms of the mind, do not thus correspond completely to events in existence.
.
And if we try to detail and tighten down all of these categories, not only do they lose much of their value, but we end with the problems of legalisms, which do not and cannot totally comprehend and deal with all complexities even using most all known ideas & their words meanings. Also. we begin to run up that exponential barrier of increasing costs and times, and lose to the rules of diminishing returns. We cannot afford such a system. It’s too complicated to be, in the long run, useful. It violates least energy rules.
.
Thus logic of itself breaks down in the face of fixity of events and definitions. When we try to fix virtually ALL of the conditions which make electrons quantum tunnel to make transistors work which clearly DO work highly reliably in our computers, then we have that same repeatability again. That same repetitiveness which give us reliable technology. But as soon as the conditions change, it gets too hot (why most computers have fans and must operate in cool conditions), the transistor becomes too small & quantum leakages occur (which marks the end of the silicon revolution and Moore’s Law, BTW). The system breaks down.
.
The light and ignitions switches almost always work, but even those break down. Conditions are no longer fulfilled, & the machine or cell, or living system breaks down. The fixedness of events in existence is that which reinforces themselves in our minds and allows recognitions to take place, which then create comprehensibility, understanding, knowledge and the categories and hierarchies of our understanding. But take away this fixedness by altering conditions & at once, the repetitive  events are gone.
.
Thus it’s the breakdown of the models, which causes loss of comprehension, much of what Einstein showed as he introduced the quantum, and relativity. IN the same way, the comparison process, as a fuzzy logic, an uber logic, used in brains in most animals, and also in many plants which can detect up from down, that is center of gravity by some unknown means, and grow relative to that.
.
.
But in history, how can we prove that Julius Caesar in a repeatedly observable way, ever existed? When such persons are living, we can very often show that truth. But after they die and information decays due to normal entropic events? We can see the same constellations (tho they change slowly enough we can ignore it in our lifetimes), the seasons, and rising of the sun and setting, too. Around us are all of the stabilities, which repeat themselves. But in that case we also see the panta rhei, the flux, the change which makes us realize this stability is largely not immutable. & there exists a range of great stabilities to the lesser, and at last the few at all.
.
IN the article, “:Depths within Depths” we see the deepest, most essential and basic, established stabilities, those of the emission lines of the atoms, which are observably stable over 15 gigaLY and 15 gigayears. & all distances and times in between the present and this immense past/distance. We see the same gravitational forces and even the Einstein crosses showing the verifiable reliability  and great age of the universe, where even across the solar system we can detect photons bending paths in a high gravity field. And we see that the stars of the most distant galaxies also shine by hydrogen fusion processes, just as they do in our sun, and so, too, the rules of nuclear processes & the Second Law are observably stable, and long lasting.
.
It’s the lack of repeatability of history which makes it hard for our understanding, because, verifiably, it’s NOT the same from year to year. These countless recombinations are generally ongoing and without end. The same is true of legal truths based upon accounts of events, which are not only necessarily not repeatable, but which cannot be shown to be repeating, unlike many physical processes, which do. Further, eye witness testimony of itself, as even the law knows by demanding physical evidence of proof of a verbal claim, means that human observations are very, very fallible. And this has been confirmed many, many times.
.
These stabilities of many events make these repetitions possible. Stabilities arise generally because of least energy effects. When our neocortex recognizes these stabilities, it does so meaningfully and with assumed force that those will be seen again and again. This is a result of experience.
.
Thus this shows the differences by comparison between the duplicable results, confirmabilities of the sciences (penicillin always works in not resistant bacteria and other organisms) versus the development of bacterial resistances which make PCN relatively useless, like some other drugs, with respect to bactericidal effects.
.
The point is that complex systems are exactly of this kind. There are aspects of them which are observably stable and repeating, tho much of it is not. The combinatorial complexity of those complex systems of huge numbers of interacting factors are virtually incomprehensible, BUT, & this is the point (the Fermi/Ulam findings), stabilities CAN and often do arise in complex systems, such as the solar system, such as stable societies, and beliefs, such as market stabilities, for a while. Even in weather and the seasons show these. Tornadoes, hurricanes and whirlwinds have these repeating, complex system features. And our brains can comprehend those as long as it can recognize repeating classes, more or less, of events. Thus, if very very clearly, those can be considered stable and the rules never change, as in transistors, within the limits of the conditions. Water at STP of 1 CC always weighs most exactly, 1 gram. 1/100th of the difference between the STP boiling and melting point of water is 1 deg. C. The same is true for most all relatively stable, fixed measuring systems. But those are NOT absolute, as relativity has shown us and this conclusion has been scientifically, and repeatedly and confirmed to be likely highly correct.
.
Confirmability of the sciences is found when events in existence largely repeat themselves. Lacking that, events become “chaotic” or turbulent flow, or more correctly & universally, complex systems. Thus the usage of the complex system model allows us to better comprehend more about systems which for us, are so complex we cannot understand, literally all of it. Our understanding considering our extreme limits is and likely most always will be limited. But the findings of stabilities in such complex interacting systems, create predictability, and thus control. we can see tornadoes forming under a range of conditions, can detect the rotating winds with Doppler radar, and thus by comparing positions of this event, can predict where it will go, and give warning. This is how the sciences work, in fact. This is how our brains detect, recognize, & form pattern recognitions which lead in many cases, to predictive control. Thus the CP is the parents of knowledge & predictive control.
.
This is essentially how the Rhizobacter fix nitrogen at soil temps, while humans must use 100’s of atmospheres of pressure and over 1000 C to fix H2O and N2 into NH4+, the basis of protein chemistries, as well.
.
It’s the repeatability of events in existence which give us scientific confirmation. Under very similar circumstances and conditions, we DO find these stabilities. Simple linear stability can be seen, but in complex systems, which are most all of event, the recognition of repeating events, such as in the plate tectonic model, again render a complex system comprehensible. We see the patterns, the repeated stability of volcanoes arising from subducting plates; fault lines where plates move laterally  more or less against each other,  creating earthquakes great and small. Similarly hot spots arise as the surface of the plates moves over underlying upwellings of basaltic lavas. Then the mountain ranges come about with this faulting, or with collision of plates, such as which created the Karakorums and the Himalayas, including the remnants of the Appalachians which arose from a similarly repeated but not exactly the same events, 100’s of megayears ago.  Or the Alps, too.
.
Therefore, how do we determine what is confirmable and what is not likely to be, for us at this time? This bears heavily on the P and NP question as well. because if a solution can be confirmed, then we can know it’s a truth. If not, it cannot be known, largely. It’s then clear from the events of history NOT being confirmable, due to entropic factors as well as complexity, that historical truths of the past are largely NOT confirmable, esp. the further they are into the past, as information tends to decay in time.
.
Thus we are left with thermodynamic considerations once again. P and NP problems are of this same type. IN order to confirm something as true, it must be a considerable, repeating stability. If not, it cannot be confirmed, scientifically, and this means that the sciences do NOT necessarily apply to it, as the problems with histories of all sorts show.  It might be in some cases, but there is no clear order to this problem. Archeology is necessarily an incomplete science due to this fact. & in order to solve the P and NP problems posed, apparently we must be able to solve it or not. So historical problems CANNOT be P = NP in a vast range of events.
.
Further, what are the classifications of events in existence which CAN be confirmed, that is, what are their fine structures, or details? We do not know in most cases. We cannot order complexity very well. Some, such as living systems and so forth we can to some extent, but not completely. And we know thermodynamics plays an important part in this.
.
Universally, observable processes such as TD, relativity and QM we CAN in some consistent sense, confirm, again and again. But those we cannot confirm, which are substantially rare and unlikely to recur again, such as a famous persons in history, & thus we cannot solve that problem. & with time passing inexorably it becomes increasingly clear we cannot. Using DNA methods we can sometimes establish ancestry, but this again runs up that exponential barrier in terms of cost. & DNA itself degrades so much even over many centuries, that we cannot duplicate dinosaurs and so far, even woolly mammoths and other species, either. Winding in & out of this are the Thermodynamic rules of entropy, once more. We can begin to classify those events which we CAN confirm, but must generally state the rarest of the combinatorial complexity problems we cannot. These are, once again, the limits of our knowledge.
.
CF: https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/09/03/beyond-the-absolute-limits-to-knowledge/
.
Thus the stability of events in existence and our ability to perceive these relatively stable events, are what give us comprehensions & lie at the roots of scientific confirmability. But the law, history and genealogy do NOT have this to rely upon in many, many cases and use similar means to make sense, that is understand, what’s going on. Realizing the limits of the sciences with respect to history and the laws with respect to scientific events is very important to do.
.
And in order to understand these better, we must classify as best we can those events and processes which repeat themselves for us, and those which do not. IN that fine structure of careful observations and classification using CP, we will find more answers. But as usual it’s NOT a logical, mathematical method which will work, but simply testing, checking in an empirical sense which will give us answers. This once again may come to rest upon experimental maths which can model such events, which are often and usually presaged by verbal recognized patterns, which can then be mathematized, in many, but not all cases. This is how relativity was mathematized by Minkowski and Einstein AFTER the fact, when the essential details of special &  general relativity were created. These are limits to maths, as well.
.
It’s the vast range of combinatorial complexity and repetitiveness which creates the problem, too. And when we with our brains find “breakthroughs” which we deem creativity, which allow us to see more “pattern recognition” then we make progress. Understanding & detecting most all of this is the comparison process (CP), which does most of the work in recognition via LTM, pattern recognition which creates the hierarchies of out understanding, & so forth.
.
When we concern ourselves with current problem of confirmability in the science articles published even in our best journals, we find the same problem. Those cannot upwards of 2/3-3/4 of the time be confirmed. This is esp. irksome in pharmacology, where journal articles were shown not to be the case, and those had to be weeded out and the facts of the matter found by confirming them repeatedly. It’s not accidental, that the accountants’ final figures are repeatably shown to be the case, but that’s still a matter of higher reliability than normal. Because if the bean counters get the same sums each time, it’s more democratic, than absolute, as well.
.
So how we know what we know, that is our epistemology, depends basically upon what we can confirm by repeating events in existence. Einstein showed these methods are NOT absolute, and therefore cannot be proven mathematically, but best by confirmations. If the math applies by comparing and closely modeling those confirmations it has a use. If not, then it’s discarded. Thus our maths, as per the Dictum of Gauss must have a practical use, and if not, they are useless to us. Inevitably then most math must very likely be experimentally validated, and if not, cannot be entertained. Otherwise we waste time upon fantasies, and sadly, this eliminates most math as being absolute, either.
.
Take geometry for instance. We do NOT see Euclidean geometries very often. Those are very rare. The universe is not Euclidean, and uses a geometry not very related to our own. Indeed, we can compare and ID human constructs versus natural phenomena by this very Euclidean nature of  our constructs, whereas events in existence, such as waves, clouds, mountain ranges and so forth are simply NOT Euclidean, thus not of human origins. By comparison, of course.
.
Yet another way, more useful and widely applicable, to confirm scientific findings rests upon this very repeating of stable events in existence, in many of their forms. This very repetition makes technologies possible, from hand axes and arrows to spears to the modern computers and MRI scans, for instance, of today. In most cases true events are also confirmed by the technologies they spawn. Irascible and falsely claimed events, such as Russo’s E-cat have NEVER and cannot result in and create technologies, simply because thy are not the case, and not confirmable. This fact, that real events in existence can often be used to create tools, devices, and technologies, due to this universal repeating characteristic, is yet another way to confirm scientific articles.
.
The Garden of Eden model here shows this point ever so much more clearly, as does the “Depths within Depths” show this immense stability of the observable universe, as well. Adam and Eve were the first humans is the religious dictum, but the story can be seen in yet another more convincing way, too. They knew sin. They knew of good as well, because they could compare events which resulting from good acts, versus the bad outcomes from evil actions. This point has been forgotten and the not Biblical ideal of “original sin” was created to help clarify the problem. But the outcomes of sins are evil and death while that of good is life and survival in the here and the hereafters.
.
At what point did prehumans become aware of this comparison of good and evil? At what time, were they able to understand what was right and what was wrong? What was moral and lawful, & what was not? & the Garden of Eden story applies this parable to answer the question. it was the outcomes of those acts which when carefully, and repeatedly compared gave them knowledge & the knowledge of what was good and what evil. The tree of knowledge lies within our cortex, and from that origin we became not animals and thus acquired the veriest essence of our humanity.
.
IN the same way as the chicken & the egg, there was a time where genetically, biologically and culturally, pre-humans could not reliably detect and recognize what was right or wrong. This problem still exists today among children, and the morally incapable. They lived in a state like the animals who do NOT have much morality, nor clear cut values. Nature is red in tooth & claw, and stealing, damage others, and such is mostly the case in the animal worlds. They can be trained, but do not usually act morally, and will often hurt themselves & others by being unable to make these distinctions which are the veriest essences of humanity. Our ancestors knew this & saw, recognized and saw the patterns repeatedly. Thus We humans are breed apart from animals, and plants.
.
So not Only was it the expulsion from Eden, but the story of the Garden ALSO tells of the time, when humans could first, reliably, tell the difference between good and evil, & this is what started our human race, as well. These are the eggs which became the first humans, as well. That ability to do pattern recognitions, reliably and well. The comparison between moral laws and our behaviors & those of others which drives the recognitions of morality, even physical laws. THAT mental ability was what changed  & made is recognizably human, and set up the entire flow of human progress and social organization for the last 10K’s of years. & incidently creates the civil and scientific laws, as well.
.
So the answer as to what the Garden of Eden story also portends, is that this is when pre-humans became humans in a large breeding population. They knew sin, but they also knew the good, & by comparing the outcomes, the fruits of their various behaviors, we know those outcomes as good or evil.
.
&in the same ways by comparing the observed events, organized by the same comparison process which drives morality we know the lawfulness of the universe, and we know, most interestingly, HOW we understand, and how the comprehensibility of the universe comes about, in the same way. This union of moral laws & physical laws, coming about from the same, repeating comparison process thinking, recognitions and LTM is what marks us as uniquely human, although we share many of those simpler traits with most all the higher animals, and even many plants. Because implicitly within the recognitions of the outcomes of good and evil, are the outcomes of the sciences which create our skills, devices, methods, and technologies. All from the same neocortex of our ancestors.
.
This is the universality of comparison process, La Chanson Sans Fin, which has been found, and which applications can create an understanding of the wellsprings of creativity & the limitless improvements in how to understand,  perform and educate. The comparison process, least energy (which arises from comparing outcomes of energy and related costs), complex systems and structure/function relationships give us a good understanding of these matters. Einstein article showed he was very interested in, how comprehension &  understanding came about by the interactions between events in existence and our nervous systems. This article is very likely a good answer to his very basic, deep question.
.
And it was found by extending Einstein’s relativity epistemology and applying it to neocortical functions, too. We see further because we stand on the shoulders of giants.

 

 

The Structure of Color Vision

By Herb Wiggins, M.D.; Clinical Neurosciences; Discoverer/Creator of the Comparison Process/CP Theory/Model; 14 Mar. 2014
 .

Using structuralist methods, LE (least energy), and CP (comparison process) we can find out a very great deal about how color vision is generated in the brain.

.

First of all,  will compare and contrast the linear electromagnetic spectrum of the known color frequencies to how the brain organizes and identifies the colors. That disparity likely will tell us much more about how our colors come about within the brain, i.e., using our language to describe how the brain creates the basic colors we see.  ROY G BIV (red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and violet. These colors were Not known before Newton to be arranged in any order, as the color vision of humans does not imply energies and frequencies of light, but simply posits these basic colors, plus a few synthetic ones. Silvery as a reflection of light off silver, steel, and water, and other shiny objects. And brown which is a combo of red and green, and again totally without ANY individual frequency on the color spectrum, either. The existence of brown and silvery, may therefore be part and parcel of the creation of useful colors by our visual systems. White, the unlimited grays, and black are also NOT true colors which can individually be located by frequencies on the EM spectrum, either. These disparities should give us pause, as to how human brain colors came about.
.
When we compare the frequencies of light for each color with the combinations of frequencies using mixing of dyes and paints, we see that the eyes creates color using a scheme which is roughly corresponding to the spectrum, but not dependent upon it totally. Thus it can create orange from yellow and red, and green from blue and yellow.
.
For instance, mixing paints and dyes of yellow and red, one gets orange. This is inexplicable because orange is NOT a mix of yellow and red, but a discrete color frequency band in the EM spectrum. However, the visual system can perceive it that way. It’s Odd. Similarly, mixing yellow and blue we get green, again ignoring an existing band of green frequencies, too These comparisons show us WHAT kind of processes and structures are doing the work. Much like optical illusions do the same for many shapes.
.
.
Also, green mixed with blue makes blue-green, which exists as well as a frequency band. Turquoise is yet another, a very light blue, with white mixed with blue, also NOT on the EM spectrum. Grayish blues and blackish blues also exist. These disparities show that colors are synthetic creations in/of our visual systems.
.
In addition, when a person has red/green color blindness, they may often report that brown is the color they see instead of red or green. They cannot see red or green traffic lights, but note which is brightest and know that a red light by convention is on the top, and green is on the bottom. God help them if the signal is mounted horizontally as it was in some towns in the 1970’s and ’80s.
.
In addition the illusions of color afterimages and bleaching are also interesting. When two colors of red and green as figures are put next to each other, if we stare at them for a few minutes, then at once look at a white sheet of paper, we see the figure for the red shape as green, and vice versa. This is true of orange and blue and yellow and purple. Why this should be is puzzling, just as the existence of brown, silver and the other colors, The lack of any hints about the spectrum using our color schemes and the curious mixing of colors which create the intermediate colors, when in fact, those are also compound, is an insight into how colors are created by our visual system.
.
The colors red, green, yellow and blue when mixed can create most all the colors, red/green being brown. & the silvery color, which is synthetic, most often seen with light glancing off water, steel, or silver.
.
The opponent color scheme to explain how our visual system creates colors, should be renamed the comparison color model. Incident frequencies of light are compared to each other by the visual cortex and the combination of colors creates the kinds of colors we see. Thus using red, green and blue diodes most all the colors can be created by our electronics, comparing amounts of red, yellow, green and blue. This also explains the composite color, brown, which while there are corresponding frequencies of light in the spectrum for each of the major colors, there is NONE for brown, or for silvery colors.. This means it’s more likely that color creation is a comparison process. When a certain amount of red is seen with a nearly equal mix of yellow, orange is produced. When blue is mixed properly with yellow, green is produced. Mixing orange with blue, purple with yellow may produce grays, largely. Also red and green create browns mixed with various amounts of many photons or few photons (white and black) numbers. Thus the opponent color model should be labelled more correctly, the comparison process color model. Brown is purely a synthetic color, as is silvery, or light reflecting off water commonly. Those are NOT pure color frequencies, but composites, which have NO actual presence in the spectrum. Neither model explains nor even considers brown!!! The visual systems create colors there, just like it creates all of the colors. But using a mix of about 3-4 major frequency detectors, it can create most all the colors without only 3 inputs, plus black and white (Darkness and lightness) for numbers of photons perceived within the normal ranges of the rods, and this gives the gray scale, largely. Thus It’s not opponent, but comparisons and combinations, which create the colors we see.
.
It’s easier to create a representation of all of the frequencies PLUS the colors of white, black, brown and silvery to further extend our perceptions of commonly seen events. Using 7-8 colors plus black and white and the grays, is more complicated. and so the LE solution of our visual systems is by combinations of colors creating the colors we actually see. It’s least action, simpler and more elegant. than having a receptor for each broad band of EM radiation. It saves complexity as well. It’s simplify, simplify simplify. That it’s NOT purely spectral, both brown and silver very clearly show, too, as well as blacks, grays and white. none of the latter have ANY band of frequencies on the EM spectrum. This disparity is also as insight as to how the visual systems creates what we see.
.
These combinations also give rise to the problem of synesthesias, wherein colors are mixed in different ways, to give rise to new colors, not seen before. Thus the potential palette of the senses is  a LOT bigger than is needed. Synesthesias are in addition a comparison processing of touch, feelings, sight, hearing rerouted in ways which make sensory outputs mix, which are not usually used because they are not needed. But comparison processing of the senses CAN easily explain those synesthesias, too. Combinations, remixing, are comparing simply, and easily explain synesthesias of all sorts, including hearing colors and seeing tones and combinations of such. Synesthetes simply assign by set point methods, much as  when we speak another language & use different tones, accents, vowels, and consonants, and their distinctions to create meanings, which clearly mark most other languages and dialects, too. Set points are different, and there that is, as well. This is the beauty of the comparison process, because it explains so very much with so very little. Again, elegant, highly capable, multiplicit almost without limits, and so forth, and highly fruitful as well.
.
Now WHY, how does it come about that we see colors? And a very likely answer is, that it’s practical, which also explains brown and silvery, too. Consider this commonly seen, but very much missed and highly important point. When, each day, do we see a rainbow?
.
At every sunrise, and sunset, the rainbow of colors is created, red, then orange, then yellow, then a bit of green and finally the blue of the clear sky. For common green we get green from plants, largelly their leaves, and that works pretty well, too. These set the colors we see by constant reinforcements until it becomes LTM (Long Term Memory) and thus recognizable and stable. For brown, we get the combo of green and red, or yellow and black, both of which are both combinations, that is comparisons of colors. Brown is a dual color and can be created in two ways. It’s a dual duality of colors!!
.
This model thus explains colors as practical reflections of commonly seen mixtures of colors, green as blue and yellow. orange as red and yellow. purples as red and blue, & so forth. Brown as red/green or yellow and black with some whites, too. So Brown is a dual duality, in fact, most peculiar but because there is a LOT of that mixture, the vision system creates a color just for it. Brown of skin, bark, dried leaves, and on and on and on. Just as red is blood, & sunrise and sunset rainbows from the refractions of light through the thicker atmosphere, so is the spectrum of the rainbow created from water drops, a refraction as well. Rainbows can also be created by using a spray of many other liquids, and even water ice, creating the solar halos, so rare, but well described and known. Thus color is created by our brains, using the commonly seen major colors of the sunrise, sunset, but NOT from rainbows, as those cannot be see often enough to set up in our memories of colors, so we can recognize the palette of colors each day. Greens from plants, and blues from skies and the white to black, the grays and whites of clouds, too, to the black of night. Black means very low numbers of photons and then the colors disappear, if light is too dim, i.e., not enough photons to allow color detection, too. It’s the combination of colors, of comparison which creates it. PLUS the creation of brown.
.
Silvery, or metallic, is simply almost total reflection of most all colors incident upon the reflector, and thus has a characteristic all its own. Mirages are simply more of this same type seen by the eyes, off a heated air layer.
.
The interesting thing is that when pure, silvery crystals of water ice are very small, when seen through a microscope they are clear. When seen with normal vision, they are white. Thus the visual systems distinguish the two, tho they are very much of the same origin as clear or white. This is another illusion also revealed by a microscope & comparison with clear water ice, too, which is NOT white, yet is at merely a different size scale. Another disparity showing us how the visual systems synthesize colors.
A very interesting issue also is  that if we were on another planet whose sun emitted the maximum number of photons at a more orange wavelength, compared to our sun brightest frequencies, which are mostly yellow/green, what colors would we see? Pretty much the same as we do now because we see the reddish cast of light at the sun’s rising and setting and are used to it. Tho our visible spectrum is clearly set around the frequencies which are the brightest and largest number of photons emitted which pass through our atmosphere, if the sun were bluer, or more orange, then that new setting of lower frequency, high photons numbers would arise in time as our eyes adapted, genetically to the new sun.
.
Our eyes naturally fix upon the brightest and largest numbers of photons in which to center vision, because this gives the MOST information. We shine a bright light on objects of interest to see them better. So, in a sense do our eyes. It’s efficient and the best way to see the most. It’s Least Energy, again!!
.
It’s also the case that when a sodium vapor light is used, some tree leaves turn a very brilliant yellow, whereas in the sunlight they are green, clearly. This is the case of incident lighting being reflected at those wavelengths when there is little green light. Mercury vapor lamps also tend to make skin more bluish and greenish, as there is very little red in mercury emissions.  Thus it might be possible to detect characteristics of the pigments in leaves by using red, yellow, green and other lights to detect which major pigments are being seen in sol called green leaves. Those maples trees which can give brilliant colors off, should also be detectable and identifiable in these ways.
.
But the facts that leaves and indeed many events show the colors they do, by reflection, shows once again that incident frequencies of light show us different colors in different lighting. This is clear. Colors of events depend in a relativity way, upon the incident lighting. There is NO absolute colour, only the arbitrary, but easily used sunlight standard, to determine what normal colors events are. Again, the relativity of the visual systems, just as with the neocortex which observes those colors and orders and recognizes them.
.
Thus, like words are made up of a series of set consonant and vowels, the set point model of pronunciations, which each language has, so too, are the colors set up in the same way.
.
But where do those colors come from? Our memories of colors are set up in the visual cortex. The standards are set up from birth by the most common colors we see, such as red, orange, brown, and so forth. Each of these are set and then become stable series of synaptic memories in the visual cortex, against which we describe and measure most all else that we see. If we see a cherry, we call it red, or maroon. An apple, red, or yellow as the case may be. An orange, orange. A lemon, lemon yellow. Her eyes were as “blue as the sky”, is yet another metaphorical description showing how it’s done. We use the set standards of color, drawn from our perceptions of those frequencies to describe evens in our existence by comparison to those colours.
.
Some have written a very great deal about the qualia of the senses. Sadly, there is no way to test such a term, quali., and must be considered without value in the sciences. Why do we see and ID and set the colors as we see them? As stated before, by the environment interacting with our visual memories. Which ID’s colors, assigns by experience which bands of frequencies are red, orange, yellow, green, etc., as well as the browns, white, grays, and blacks.
.
Is there a sense for “perfect” colors, as there is for “perfect” pitch? Interior designers know there is, but it’s based upon sunlight, largely, too, as the “arbitrary, relatively fixed & stable standard” against which we describe and measure colors. We see again, how the measuring epistemology of Einstein’s relativity, the comparison processes of verbal descriptions AND measurable frequencies, and lightness and darkness, are used universally to ID colors. To which we add the least energy principle, that the standard must be easy to use, ubiquitous and simple. Just as we use water to establish our temp scales, weights and much else. Observe the object in full sunlight, the standard by which we assign colors, and assign the color to it or by frequencies distributions from a photometer, and number of incident photons of each frequency. That’s relativity, once again.
.
.
These can be seen quite well at any paint store or paint department. The EM spectrum is simply a linear succession of frequencies. In real life, there are ranges of frequencies, based upon numbers of photons at those frequencies, which determines lightness or darkness, or the grays of unlimited kinds in between. Thus real colors are NOT linear as on frequencies lined up according to about 500 nm. to 800 or so, BUT are mixtures of colors, brightnesses and grays as well. Pastel red as pink or rosy. Intense reds of rubies, and the darker shades of corundum reds. The entire palette of colors is 3 dimensional at least, NOT just linear frequency sequence, either. That’s too linear to be accurate. and thus the palettes of colors at paint stores which begins to show the FULLEST range of color combos and so forth. Simply go to a paint store and look at the unlimited palettes of color chips they have there to verify and give real meaning to how the actual colors, pure or in combinations in real life are far, far more than any simple, linear frequency line of colors.
.
Then there are the electric blues, the oranges and bright green colors seen on road crews’ jackets, and so forth. & the metallic color combinations as well seen best on our cars. Or the multiple color crystals which change as the incident light angle changes, as well, specifically the maroon which changes to a bluish maroon Ford, when the eyes & head move around. Complex systems, and not linear, either, any more than the brilliance of many birds, notable the hyacinth macaws, the cockatoos, the male birdwings, and the magnificent displays of the incomparable metal mark butterflies (Ancyluris spps., etc.) and the Papillios, the swallowtails.
.
And all of these noted facts should give us a better understanding about how the visual system detects wavelengths of light and then creates the many colors to represent those.

Le Chanson Sans Fin: Table of Contents

1. The Comparison Process, Introduction, Pt. 1
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/02/14/le-chanson-sans-fin-the-comparison-process-introduction/?relatedposts_hit=1&relatedposts_origin=22&relatedposts_position=0

2. The Comparison Process, Introduction, Pt. 2
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/02/14/le-chanson-sans-fin-the-comparison-process-pt-2/?relatedposts_hit=1&relatedposts_origin=3&relatedposts_position=1

3. The Comparison Process, Introduction, Pt. 3
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/02/15/le-chanson-sans-fin-the-comparison-process-pt-3/?relatedposts_hit=1&relatedposts_origin=7&relatedposts_position=0

4. The Comparison Process, The Explananda 1
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/02/28/the-comparison-process-explananda-pt-1/

5. The Comparison Process, The Explananda 2
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/02/28/the-comparison-process-explananda-pt-2/

6. The Comparison Process, The Explananda 3
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/03/04/comparison-process-explananda-pt-3/?relatedposts_hit=1&relatedposts_origin=17&relatedposts_position=1

7. The Comparison Process, The Explananda 4
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/03/15/the-comparison-process-comp-explananda-4/?relatedposts_hit=1&relatedposts_origin=38&relatedposts_position=0

8. The Comparison Process, The Explananda 5: Cosmology
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/03/15/cosmology-and-the-comparison-process-comp-explananda-5/

9. AI and the Comparison Process
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/03/20/artificial-intelligence-ai-and-the-comparison-process-comp/

10. Optical and Sensory Illusions, Creativity and the Comparison Process (COMP)
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/03/06/opticalsensory-illusions-creativity-the-comp/

11. The Emotional Continuum: Exploring Emotions with the Comparison Process
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/04/02/the-emotional-continuum-exploring-emotions/

12. Depths within Depths: the Nested Great Mysteries
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/04/14/depths-within-depths-the-nested-great-mysteries/

13. Language/Math, Description/Measurement, Least Energy Principle and AI
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/languagemath-descriptionmeasurement-least-energy-principle-and-ai/

14. The Continua, Yin/Yang, Dualities; Creativity and Prediction
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/04/21/the-continua-yinyang-dualities-creativity-and-prediction/

15. Empirical Introspection and the Comparison Process
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/04/24/81/

16. The Spark of Life and the Soul of Wit
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/04/30/the-spark-of-life-and-the-soul-of-wit/

17. The Praxis: Use of Cortical Evoked Responses (CER), functional MRI (fMRI), Magnetic Electroencephalography (MEG), and Magnetic Stimulation of brain (MagStim) to investigate recognition, creativity and the Comparison Process

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/05/16/the-praxis/

18. A Field Trip into the Mind

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/05/21/106/

19. Complex Systems, Boundary Events and Hierarchies

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/06/11/complex-systems-boundary-events-and-hierarchies/

20. The Relativity of the Cortex: The Mind/Brain Interface

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/07/02/the-relativity-of-the-cortex-the-mindbrain-interface/

21. How to Cure Diabetes (AODM type 2)
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/07/18/how-to-cure-diabetes-aodm-2/

22. Dealing with Sociopaths, Terrorists and Riots

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/08/12/dealing-with-sociopaths-terrorists-and-riots/

23. Beyond the Absolute: The Limits to Knowledge

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/09/03/beyond-the-absolute-limits-to-knowledge/

24  Imaging the Conscience.

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/10/20/imaging-the-conscience/

25. The Comparison Process: Creativity, and Linguistics. Analyzing a Movie

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2015/03/24/comparison-process-creativity-and-linguistics-analyzing-a-movie/

26. A Mother’s Wisdom

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2015/06/03/a-mothers-wisdom/

27. The Fox and the Hedgehog

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2015/06/19/the-fox-the-hedgehog/

28. Sequoias, Parkinson’s and Space Sickness.

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2015/07/17/sequoias-parkinsons-and-space-sickness/

29. Evolution, growth, & Development: A Deeper Understanding.

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2015/09/01/evolution-growth-development-a-deeper-understanding/

30. Explanandum 6: Understanding Complex Systems

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2015/09/08/explandum-6-understanding-complex-systems/

31. The Promised Land of the Undiscovered Country: Towards Universal Understanding

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2015/09/28/the-promised-land-of-the-undiscovered-country-towards-universal-understanding-2/

32. The Power of Proliferation

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2015/10/02/the-power-of-proliferation/

33. A Field Trip into our Understanding

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2015/11/03/a-field-trip-into-our-understanding/

34.  Extensions & applications: Pts. 1 & 2.

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2016/05/17/extensions-applications-pts-1-2/

35. A Hierarchical Turing Test for General AI

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2016/05/17/extensions-applications-pts-1-2/

36. The Structure of Color Vision

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2016/06/11/the-structure-of-color-vision/

37. La Chanson Sans Fin:   Table of Contents

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2015/09/28/le-chanson-sans-fin-table-of-contents-2/

38. The Structure of Color Vision

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2016/06/16/the-structure-of-color-vision-2/

39. Stabilities, Repetitions, and Confirmability

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2016/06/30/stabilities-repetitions-confirmability/

40. The Balanced Brain

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2016/07/08/the-balanced-brain/

41. The Limits to Linear Thinking & Methods

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2016/07/10/the-limits-to-linear-thinking-methods/