The Inter Mind

What you think about how you think.
User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10184
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Poodle » Wed Aug 08, 2018 1:27 pm

Dimebag wrote:... I do, however, agree with Steve, that we are yet to explain scientifically, how and why a stream of photons within a wavelength of 620nm should result in the experience of redness. All this is means is to say, yes, there is much work to be done. Currently, we have neuroscience attacking the problem from multiple different angles, and we must be patient, keep an open mind, while at the same time, not allow ourselves to reach for explanations outside the possibilities of science.
I think that no one would argue that there is a scientific explanation for our ability to distinguish between having our noses tickled with a feather or smashed by a well-aimed housebrick. Why, then, should we pretend that our ability to distinguish quite finely within the part of the electromagnetic spectrum usually called visible light is questionable? A finely-tuned nose can distinguish between a vast number of vineyard products, and a properly functioning ear can nail down an audible frequency to within extremely fine limits - ask a piano tuner. What is it that makes people demand that sight is different? It's what our senses do (ref. evolution, billions of years, frequency analysis, blood, Old Uncle Tom Cobley and alllllllllll).
EDIT: We do realise (don't we?) that sound is merely vibration in a medium. So what is the true nature of middle C?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15564
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Aug 08, 2018 2:28 pm

Did we cover the color blind earlier in this thread? Don't even know it until they are tested? Red is what you experience at that wavelength...……..however you might see it. Like most things.....its a bell shaped curve and none of us know "exactly" what others are experiencing with the same stimuli....and half the time we can't remember what we experience ourselves.

………………..……………….and yet, we reproduce, which is all that matters. always lookin for that red.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 804
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Dimebag » Wed Aug 08, 2018 7:58 pm

Poodle wrote:
Dimebag wrote:... I do, however, agree with Steve, that we are yet to explain scientifically, how and why a stream of photons within a wavelength of 620nm should result in the experience of redness. All this is means is to say, yes, there is much work to be done. Currently, we have neuroscience attacking the problem from multiple different angles, and we must be patient, keep an open mind, while at the same time, not allow ourselves to reach for explanations outside the possibilities of science.
I think that no one would argue that there is a scientific explanation for our ability to distinguish between having our noses tickled with a feather or smashed by a well-aimed housebrick. Why, then, should we pretend that our ability to distinguish quite finely within the part of the electromagnetic spectrum usually called visible light is questionable? A finely-tuned nose can distinguish between a vast number of vineyard products, and a properly functioning ear can nail down an audible frequency to within extremely fine limits - ask a piano tuner. What is it that makes people demand that sight is different? It's what our senses do (ref. evolution, billions of years, frequency analysis, blood, Old Uncle Tom Cobley and alllllllllll).
EDIT: We do realise (don't we?) that sound is merely vibration in a medium. So what is the true nature of middle C?
Its like reading Musashi without reading the last page, or so I hear (don't spoil it for me). I don't deny that we have a vast understanding of the functioning of the brain, but to say the book is closed on consciousness would be to do what I just described.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15564
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Aug 08, 2018 8:54 pm

Has anyone suggested the "book is closed on consciousness"? Silly git whoever it was.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 33797
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Gord » Wed Aug 08, 2018 8:55 pm

Dimebag wrote:...we are yet to explain scientifically, how and why a stream of photons within a wavelength of 620nm should result in the experience of redness....
"Why" is usually not a question to be explained scientifically, as it carries with it the suggestion of intent and/or agency -- for example, "how did you go to the store" versus "why did you go to the store".
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8867
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by landrew » Wed Aug 08, 2018 10:55 pm

Gord wrote:
Dimebag wrote:...we are yet to explain scientifically, how and why a stream of photons within a wavelength of 620nm should result in the experience of redness....
"Why" is usually not a question to be explained scientifically, as it carries with it the suggestion of intent and/or agency -- for example, "how did you go to the store" versus "why did you go to the store".
Red wavelengths stimulate red receptors.
Nothing mystical, just basic physics.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15564
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Aug 08, 2018 11:33 pm

………….and red receptors are advantageous for finding ripe fruit?...……………..

Its always: Darwin.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10184
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Poodle » Thu Aug 09, 2018 8:31 am

Dimebag wrote:Its like reading Musashi without reading the last page, or so I hear (don't spoil it for me). I don't deny that we have a vast understanding of the functioning of the brain, but to say the book is closed on consciousness would be to do what I just described.
Who said the book is closed? What I object to is a claim without having read the book even in its open state. Here's a hypothetical situation ...
A Why do things drop downwards?
B Gravity
A Ah - but we don't really know what gravity is. Maybe it's a different thing to what we think.
B Wouldn't we still call that gravity?
A No, because I think it isn't.
B OK. What's gravity?
A Eermmm ... ...

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Thu Aug 09, 2018 10:46 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:The red thing is a propagated wave. As physical as the actual object. I'll quote Matt: "Boy..... you sure are stoopid." sorry to be so crass....but it fits on all points.
You can not See the Propagated Wave in the way you think you do. All you can do is Detect the Wave. Your Mind creates the Redness that you See. There is no Redness in the Wave itself. The Redness that you See is a Surrogate created by your Mind that you use for Detection of the Wave. You think the Surrogate Redness is what the Wave looks like because that is the only way you have ever Seen the Wave. The Redness is a Property of a Conscious thing that exists only in your Mind. The Wave itself has a Property of Wavelength but has no Property of Redness.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 33797
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Gord » Thu Aug 09, 2018 10:54 am

Yeah, what Steve said.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:17 am

Dimebag wrote:I disagree with Steve in regards to the comparison of redness experienced in dreams vs reality, although his dreams may be different. For me, there is no real sense of colour within my dreams, or at least nowhere near the vividness of waking colour perception. From memory I could not even say if I do experience colour in dreams. I would say it would probably be about the same as my ability to imagine colour voluntarily, which is to say, quite poor.
My ability to imagine color voluntarily is also quite poor. I think you had a thread about that. My Dreams are not always in color but when they are the Color is quite vivid. It is well known that some people never Dream in color. I wonder if it Is possible that some people never really See color even while Awake? They would only have a vague sense of color. They would never know what Vivid color perception is all about. They would also tend to discount the realness of Color because it is always only a vague sense of Color. The only way we could prove this is if there was some way to actually See what someone else was experiencing.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:01 pm

Poodle wrote:
Dimebag wrote:... I do, however, agree with Steve, that we are yet to explain scientifically, how and why a stream of photons within a wavelength of 620nm should result in the experience of redness. All this is means is to say, yes, there is much work to be done. Currently, we have neuroscience attacking the problem from multiple different angles, and we must be patient, keep an open mind, while at the same time, not allow ourselves to reach for explanations outside the possibilities of science.
I think that no one would argue that there is a scientific explanation for our ability to distinguish between having our noses tickled with a feather or smashed by a well-aimed housebrick. Why, then, should we pretend that our ability to distinguish quite finely within the part of the electromagnetic spectrum usually called visible light is questionable? A finely-tuned nose can distinguish between a vast number of vineyard products, and a properly functioning ear can nail down an audible frequency to within extremely fine limits - ask a piano tuner. What is it that makes people demand that sight is different? It's what our senses do (ref. evolution, billions of years, frequency analysis, blood, Old Uncle Tom Cobley and alllllllllll).
EDIT: We do realise (don't we?) that sound is merely vibration in a medium. So what is the true nature of middle C?
Of course our noses, ears and eyes have evolved to let us operate in the world. These are Sensors similar to any sensor that technology can produce. Ok let's take middle C. It has a frequency of 261.6Hz. This is an Oscillating pressure wave in the air. The wave hits the Ear Drum which transfers vibrations to the Cochlea through an impedance matching stage. The pressure Wave in the air is converted to a disturbance in the fluid of the Cochlea which makes certain hair like Neurons fire. When these Neurons fire there is no longer any kind of Wave phenomenon. All there is Neural Activity. Is there any Sound yet? The actual Sound that you hear is generated further down the processing chain in the Auditory Areas of the Cortex. You don't hear the Wave phenomenon. The Wave phenomenon is able to excite the Auditory Nerves. An experience of Sound can be obtained if the Auditory Areas are probed during surgery. This probing also excites the Auditory Nerves. Anything that excites the Auditory Nerves can produce a Sound effect. It is clear that the Sound you hear is a result of Auditory Neural activity. The Sound you hear actually has more to do with Neural Activity than the actual original Pressure Wave. You think the Sound you hear is the Pressure Wave because it is the only way you have experienced the Pressure Wave. The Sound you hear is a Surrogate for the Pressure Wave. The Sound you hear is not the Pressure Wave itself. You can only Detect the Pressure Wave you can never really Hear it like you think you do.
Last edited by SteveKlinko on Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:06 pm

landrew wrote:
Gord wrote:
Dimebag wrote:...we are yet to explain scientifically, how and why a stream of photons within a wavelength of 620nm should result in the experience of redness....
"Why" is usually not a question to be explained scientifically, as it carries with it the suggestion of intent and/or agency -- for example, "how did you go to the store" versus "why did you go to the store".
Red wavelengths stimulate red receptors.
Nothing mystical, just basic physics.
Nothing Mystical but definitely something way more than basic Physics. Think more Deeply.

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10184
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Poodle » Thu Aug 09, 2018 2:47 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:Of course our noses, ears and eyes have evolved to let us operate in the world. These are Sensors similar to any sensor that technology can produce. Ok let's take middle C. It has a frequency of 261.6Hz. This is an Oscillating pressure wave in the air. The wave hits the Ear Drum which transfers vibrations to the Cochlea through an impedance matching stage. The pressure Wave in the air is converted to a disturbance in the fluid of the Cochlea which makes certain hair like Neurons fire. When these Neurons fire there is no longer any kind of Wave phenomenon. All there is Neural Activity. Is there any Sound yet? The actual Sound that you hear is generated further down the processing chain in the Auditory Areas of the Cortex. You don't hear the Wave phenomenon. The Wave phenomenon is able to excite the Auditory Nerves. An experience of Sound can be obtained if the Auditory Areas are probed during surgery. This probing also excites the Auditory Nerves. Anything that excites the Auditory Nerves can produce a Sound effect. It is clear that the Sound you hear is a result of Auditory Neural activity. The Sound you hear actually has more to do with Neural Activity than the actual original Pressure Wave. You think the Sound you hear is the Pressure Wave because it is the only way you have experienced the Pressure Wave. The Sound you hear is a Surrogate for the Pressure Wave. The Sound you hear is not the Pressure Wave itself. You can only Detect the Pressure Wave you can never really Hear it like you think you do.
Well done, Steve - now substitute 'sight' words for all the 'hearing' words in the above passage. Job done!

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15564
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Aug 09, 2018 5:28 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:The red thing is a propagated wave. As physical as the actual object. I'll quote Matt: "Boy..... you sure are stoopid." sorry to be so crass....but it fits on all points.
You can not See the Propagated Wave in the way you think you do. All you can do is Detect the Wave. Your Mind creates the Redness that you See. There is no Redness in the Wave itself. The Redness that you See is a Surrogate created by your Mind that you use for Detection of the Wave. You think the Surrogate Redness is what the Wave looks like because that is the only way you have ever Seen the Wave. The Redness is a Property of a Conscious thing that exists only in your Mind. The Wave itself has a Property of Wavelength but has no Property of Redness.
Again: you sure are stupid. Trying to take simple stimulus/reaction events into some mystical realm all based on your ignornance. But...…...I suspect you do know and you are playing a degraded linguistics game as much for your own sense of wonder as for the power/superiority you think it gives you over other people.

Just...…….plain...……….stoop id. Kinda frustrating for me.....but I've run into it before on Deist forums. clever word playing chaps over there on issues that are mystical to begin with (as opposed to objective reality) making them virtually puncture proof.

……...but...…...I don't like disrespecting you to the degree I have. I don't like in effect giving you reason to leave this forum. I just totally disagree with your entire perspective/performance/posting...……..so I will withdraw. Enjoy your time with those who have more patience.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Thu Aug 09, 2018 9:45 pm

Poodle wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:Of course our noses, ears and eyes have evolved to let us operate in the world. These are Sensors similar to any sensor that technology can produce. Ok let's take middle C. It has a frequency of 261.6Hz. This is an Oscillating pressure wave in the air. The wave hits the Ear Drum which transfers vibrations to the Cochlea through an impedance matching stage. The pressure Wave in the air is converted to a disturbance in the fluid of the Cochlea which makes certain hair like Neurons fire. When these Neurons fire there is no longer any kind of Wave phenomenon. All there is Neural Activity. Is there any Sound yet? The actual Sound that you hear is generated further down the processing chain in the Auditory Areas of the Cortex. You don't hear the Wave phenomenon. The Wave phenomenon is able to excite the Auditory Nerves. An experience of Sound can be obtained if the Auditory Areas are probed during surgery. This probing also excites the Auditory Nerves. Anything that excites the Auditory Nerves can produce a Sound effect. It is clear that the Sound you hear is a result of Auditory Neural activity. The Sound you hear actually has more to do with Neural Activity than the actual original Pressure Wave. You think the Sound you hear is the Pressure Wave because it is the only way you have experienced the Pressure Wave. The Sound you hear is a Surrogate for the Pressure Wave. The Sound you hear is not the Pressure Wave itself. You can only Detect the Pressure Wave you can never really Hear it like you think you do.
Well done, Steve - now substitute 'sight' words for all the 'hearing' words in the above passage. Job done!
That was my whole point.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Thu Aug 09, 2018 9:53 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:The red thing is a propagated wave. As physical as the actual object. I'll quote Matt: "Boy..... you sure are stoopid." sorry to be so crass....but it fits on all points.
You can not See the Propagated Wave in the way you think you do. All you can do is Detect the Wave. Your Mind creates the Redness that you See. There is no Redness in the Wave itself. The Redness that you See is a Surrogate created by your Mind that you use for Detection of the Wave. You think the Surrogate Redness is what the Wave looks like because that is the only way you have ever Seen the Wave. The Redness is a Property of a Conscious thing that exists only in your Mind. The Wave itself has a Property of Wavelength but has no Property of Redness.
Again: you sure are stupid. Trying to take simple stimulus/reaction events into some mystical realm all based on your ignornance. But...…...I suspect you do know and you are playing a degraded linguistics game as much for your own sense of wonder as for the power/superiority you think it gives you over other people.

Just...…….plain...……….stoop id. Kinda frustrating for me.....but I've run into it before on Deist forums. clever word playing chaps over there on issues that are mystical to begin with (as opposed to objective reality) making them virtually puncture proof.

……...but...…...I don't like disrespecting you to the degree I have. I don't like in effect giving you reason to leave this forum. I just totally disagree with your entire perspective/performance/posting...……..so I will withdraw. Enjoy your time with those who have more patience.
I gave it my best shot. Sorry I was unable to convince you. Bye.

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10184
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Poodle » Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:06 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Poodle wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:Of course our noses, ears and eyes have evolved to let us operate in the world. These are Sensors similar to any sensor that technology can produce. Ok let's take middle C. It has a frequency of 261.6Hz. This is an Oscillating pressure wave in the air. The wave hits the Ear Drum which transfers vibrations to the Cochlea through an impedance matching stage. The pressure Wave in the air is converted to a disturbance in the fluid of the Cochlea which makes certain hair like Neurons fire. When these Neurons fire there is no longer any kind of Wave phenomenon. All there is Neural Activity. Is there any Sound yet? The actual Sound that you hear is generated further down the processing chain in the Auditory Areas of the Cortex. You don't hear the Wave phenomenon. The Wave phenomenon is able to excite the Auditory Nerves. An experience of Sound can be obtained if the Auditory Areas are probed during surgery. This probing also excites the Auditory Nerves. Anything that excites the Auditory Nerves can produce a Sound effect. It is clear that the Sound you hear is a result of Auditory Neural activity. The Sound you hear actually has more to do with Neural Activity than the actual original Pressure Wave. You think the Sound you hear is the Pressure Wave because it is the only way you have experienced the Pressure Wave. The Sound you hear is a Surrogate for the Pressure Wave. The Sound you hear is not the Pressure Wave itself. You can only Detect the Pressure Wave you can never really Hear it like you think you do.
Well done, Steve - now substitute 'sight' words for all the 'hearing' words in the above passage. Job done!
That was my whole point.
Then either you are or I am missing something fundamental. We both appear to agree that any of our senses is based upon a straightforward biological chain of events determined solely by our evolution, and all, naturally, interfacing with the brain at the end of the chain. We interpret vibrations within the air as sound, the agitation levels of molecules as heat, the presence of certain molecules in the air as smell and certain molecules in our food as taste. You appear to accept this with no problem and you do not ask why we would need to do this or, indeed, how we do it. But you isolate sight for special consideration and ask specifically what the 'experience' of red is. I cannot see (no pun intended) why you would think this in some way more special than any other sense. Red is salt aka the second octave aka smooth and cold aka rotten meat. It's part of the differentiation for which we have the senses in the first place. It's an ability we need to have to survive, otherwise we wouldn't have it. We experience all of those things because that's how our nervous system has developed. The environment is monitored by our senses. and each sense provides a range of interpretations which provide our experience of that environment. The experience of red is the reception of electromagnetic waves in the range 430 to 480 THz - nothing more and nothing less. It is self-explanatory and looking for any further complexity is akin to asking what is the sound of one hand clapping.
It seems a very Heath Robinson/Rube Goldberg way of looking at things.

User avatar
oppressor
New Member
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 4:25 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by oppressor » Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:25 pm

The color red is not an experience. that's what he's missing. He's confusing red imagination in dreams with actual red you imagine or you see thanks to the cells in your eyes that sense the red wavelenght coming from some object.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 33797
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Gord » Fri Aug 10, 2018 3:30 am

oppressor wrote:The color red is not an experience. that's what he's missing. He's confusing red imagination in dreams with actual red you imagine or you see thanks to the cells in your eyes that sense the red wavelenght coming from some object.
The "red" he's talking about is the experience, rather than the light.

Light hits our eyes, which send messages to our brains, which triggers activation of the areas that register it as the colour red. That's how we experience it consciously.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 804
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Dimebag » Fri Aug 10, 2018 9:47 am

Gord wrote:
Dimebag wrote:...we are yet to explain scientifically, how and why a stream of photons within a wavelength of 620nm should result in the experience of redness....
"Why" is usually not a question to be explained scientifically, as it carries with it the suggestion of intent and/or agency -- for example, "how did you go to the store" versus "why did you go to the store".
To me, the question why implies multiple possibilities, not necessarily intent or agency. The two possibilities are in this case, an experience occurring vs an experience not occurring based on contingent physical processes, that is the why I speak of, why does an experience occur, as opposed to nothing.

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10184
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Poodle » Fri Aug 10, 2018 10:17 am

I can give you a response pinched from somewhere else in a different discipline, Dimebag ...
If our experiences did not occur, we wouldn't be here to experience them. They've kept us alive long enough to at least ask the question.

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 804
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Dimebag » Fri Aug 10, 2018 10:40 am

Poodle wrote:I can give you a response pinched from somewhere else in a different discipline, Dimebag ...
If our experiences did not occur, we wouldn't be here to experience them. They've kept us alive long enough to at least ask the question.
I can appreciate that explanation poodle, the evolutionary reason, and although some people consider consciousness to be purely epiphenomenal fluff, I hold your example to be evidence to the counter.

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10184
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Poodle » Fri Aug 10, 2018 11:46 am

Even though I had to look that one up before I understood it, I both agree and disagree. Of course mental events can depend upon sensory input. Equally, mental events can determine physical action. But I think that's another discussion (in which I would happily participate) which doesn't impinge upon Steve's insistence upon the metaphysical nature of colour vision.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Fri Aug 10, 2018 1:02 pm

Poodle wrote: Then either you are or I am missing something fundamental. We both appear to agree that any of our senses is based upon a straightforward biological chain of events determined solely by our evolution, and all, naturally, interfacing with the brain at the end of the chain. We interpret vibrations within the air as sound, the agitation levels of molecules as heat, the presence of certain molecules in the air as smell and certain molecules in our food as taste. You appear to accept this with no problem and you do not ask why we would need to do this or, indeed, how we do it. But you isolate sight for special consideration and ask specifically what the 'experience' of red is. I cannot see (no pun intended) why you would think this in some way more special than any other sense. Red is salt aka the second octave aka smooth and cold aka rotten meat. It's part of the differentiation for which we have the senses in the first place. It's an ability we need to have to survive, otherwise we wouldn't have it. We experience all of those things because that's how our nervous system has developed. The environment is monitored by our senses. and each sense provides a range of interpretations which provide our experience of that environment. The experience of red is the reception of electromagnetic waves in the range 430 to 480 THz - nothing more and nothing less. It is self-explanatory and looking for any further complexity is akin to asking what is the sound of one hand clapping.
It seems a very Heath Robinson/Rube Goldberg way of looking at things.
Yes I specifically decided to study our experience of Light and specifically the color Red. Could have chosen any of the other 4 senses. It just seemed easier to study Red because at almost any time of the day there will be something Red you can look at. if I were to study Salty taste then I would have to carry around and suck on salt tablets when I was in the mood to think about that sensation. Sound could be used but it is difficult to hear pure tones in the normal world. You could of course just study Sound in general so any background Sound will do. I like concentrating on a particular thing but background Sound is always different in different places. The important thing to think about when you are tasting Salty food or Seeing the color Red or Hearing middle C is to be aware of the experience itself. Forget about EM Waves, Pressure Waves, and Chemicals. The Experiences are caused by these Physical World things but the Experiences are not Properties of these things. If you think about the Experiences long enough, took me 20 years, you will eventually see how the Red, Salty Taste, and C Tone are just Surrogates for the Physical stimuli.

When you say "The experience of red is the reception of electromagnetic waves in the range 430 to 480 THz - nothing more and nothing less" you are certainly not seeing the Explanatory Gap that is inherent in such a statement. The something more is the Surrogate experience of Red. It comes in a further step in the processing chain. What is that experience of Red for You? Do you believe you are Directly experiencing the Red Light itself? It is clear that the Neural processing chain completely separates you from Seeing the Red Light itself. If you understand that the Red you see is not a Direct experience of the Red Light itself then what are you Seeing and How do you see it? Maybe you are Seeing a Surrogate for the Red Light? If you agree to that then what is that Surrogate and How do you See it?

Salt is a chemical that has no Property of Taste. No chemical has a property of Taste. The Taste experience is separate from any Properties that the chemical has. The Taste experience is a Surrogate that you experience in place of Direct experience of any actual Property of the Salt. You can only Detect Salt. What is that Taste experience? How do we experience it? These are the unanswered questions that Science needs to get to work on. Science can talk about all the Neural Activity involved during a Salty Taste experience but Science can not form a chain of causal events that leads to the actual Taste experience itself. The time when Science could say "the Neurons Fire and that explains it" is over. Science shows a glaring sophomoric ignorance of the actual Problem when it says these kinds of things.

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10184
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Poodle » Fri Aug 10, 2018 1:44 pm

Oh - then I think there's been a communication hiatus, Steve. I have been assuming that colour vision (particularly red) is your bugbear. Now it appears that you are talking about sensory perception in general. Would that be correct? If it is, then we have to begin again, and you have to learn to express yourself more precisely. Over to you.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15564
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Aug 10, 2018 2:44 pm

SteveKlinko wrote: I gave it my best shot. Sorry I was unable to convince you. Bye.
Making every signoff only penultimate, or this an epilogue, I'm struck that you want to "convince" anyone of anything. Now....for sure...I argue with just about everyone about just about everything but its not really for the point of getting them to agree with me. Rather, its to find the best position, to find what might be a weakness or what is just simply wrong in my own position. TO CHANGE MY MIND. The only hurdle I find, is the best argument. This would not be the case if it were my intent to change anyone's mind. To avoid stronger arguments. To not change my mind.

There is something very dishonest, manipulative, and basically "evil" in "wanting" to change another persons mind. Violates another's autonomy. Violates any search for the truth. Changing another persons mind while your own mind is open to change, both parties reaching some kind of mutually beneficial middle ground when found is distinctly different.

I agree, the distinction can be a close call, or even a fantasy and ego stroke. Or...just the opposite.

Closed Minds vs Open Minds. Interesting.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8867
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by landrew » Fri Aug 10, 2018 3:06 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote: I gave it my best shot. Sorry I was unable to convince you. Bye.
Making every signoff only penultimate, or this an epilogue, I'm struck that you want to "convince" anyone of anything. Now....for sure...I argue with just about everyone about just about everything but its not really for the point of getting them to agree with me. Rather, its to find the best position, to find what might be a weakness or what is just simply wrong in my own position. TO CHANGE MY MIND. The only hurdle I find, is the best argument. This would not be the case if it were my intent to change anyone's mind. To avoid stronger arguments. To not change my mind.

There is something very dishonest, manipulative, and basically "evil" in "wanting" to change another persons mind. Violates another's autonomy. Violates any search for the truth. Changing another persons mind while your own mind is open to change, both parties reaching some kind of mutually beneficial middle ground when found is distinctly different.

I agree, the distinction can be a close call, or even a fantasy and ego stroke. Or...just the opposite.

Closed Minds vs Open Minds. Interesting.
I've had my mind changed by debate. I'm not saying it isn't rare, but I'm proud to say I'm a better person as a result. I try to return the favor sometimes by pressing someone to a point they seem resistant towards. That's when you sometimes discover that certain minds are not engaging in debate to learn anything; they are simply here to do tribal battle and count coup against the "other side." That's when you know you're dealing with a troll who is only here to disrupt and waste time.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15564
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Aug 10, 2018 3:12 pm

Exactly so landrew. Adopt the practice early enough and in some time you may start to look inflexible as your opinion is so finely honed that changes become rare. Totally different than starting from a closed mind position.....but I'm sure most thinking the latter, claim the former. How to tell them apart? A deep dive into self awareness. Only wrong most of the time…………………………….
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
mirror93
Poster
Posts: 467
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by mirror93 » Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:20 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Poodle wrote:

̶t̶h̶e̶n̶ ̶e̶i̶t̶h̶e̶r̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶i̶ ̶a̶m̶ ̶m̶i̶s̶s̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶s̶o̶m̶e̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶f̶u̶n̶d̶a̶m̶e̶n̶t̶a̶l̶.̶ ̶w̶e̶ ̶b̶o̶t̶h̶ ̶a̶p̶p̶e̶a̶r̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶a̶g̶r̶e̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶a̶n̶y̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶o̶u̶r̶ ̶s̶e̶n̶s̶e̶s̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶b̶a̶s̶e̶d̶ ̶u̶p̶o̶n̶ ̶a̶ ̶s̶t̶r̶a̶i̶g̶h̶t̶f̶o̶r̶w̶a̶r̶d̶ ̶b̶i̶o̶l̶o̶g̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ ̶c̶h̶a̶i̶n̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶e̶v̶e̶n̶t̶s̶ ̶d̶e̶t̶e̶r̶m̶i̶n̶e̶d̶ ̶s̶o̶l̶e̶l̶y̶ ̶b̶y̶ ̶o̶u̶r̶ ̶e̶v̶o̶l̶u̶t̶i̶o̶n̶,̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶a̶l̶l̶,̶ ̶n̶a̶t̶u̶r̶a̶l̶l̶y̶,̶ ̶i̶n̶t̶e̶r̶f̶a̶c̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶b̶r̶a̶i̶n̶ ̶a̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶e̶n̶d̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶c̶h̶a̶i̶n̶.̶ ̶w̶e̶ ̶i̶n̶t̶e̶r̶p̶r̶e̶t̶ ̶v̶i̶b̶r̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶s̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶a̶i̶r̶ ̶a̶s̶ ̶s̶o̶u̶n̶d̶,̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶a̶g̶i̶t̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶l̶e̶v̶e̶l̶s̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶m̶o̶l̶e̶c̶u̶l̶e̶s̶ ̶a̶s̶ ̶h̶e̶a̶t̶,̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶p̶r̶e̶s̶e̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶c̶e̶r̶t̶a̶i̶n̶ ̶m̶o̶l̶e̶c̶u̶l̶e̶s̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶a̶i̶r̶ ̶a̶s̶ ̶s̶m̶e̶l̶l̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶c̶e̶r̶t̶a̶i̶n̶ ̶m̶o̶l̶e̶c̶u̶l̶e̶s̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶o̶u̶r̶ ̶f̶o̶o̶d̶ ̶a̶s̶ ̶t̶a̶s̶t̶e̶.̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶a̶p̶p̶e̶a̶r̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶a̶c̶c̶e̶p̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶ ̶n̶o̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶b̶l̶e̶m̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶d̶o̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶a̶s̶k̶ ̶w̶h̶y̶ ̶w̶e̶ ̶w̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶n̶e̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶d̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶o̶r̶,̶ ̶i̶n̶d̶e̶e̶d̶,̶ ̶h̶o̶w̶ ̶w̶e̶ ̶d̶o̶ ̶i̶t̶.̶ ̶b̶u̶t̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶i̶s̶o̶l̶a̶t̶e̶ ̶s̶i̶g̶h̶t̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶s̶p̶e̶c̶i̶a̶l̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶i̶d̶e̶r̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶a̶s̶k̶ ̶s̶p̶e̶c̶i̶f̶i̶c̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶w̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶'̶e̶x̶p̶e̶r̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶'̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶r̶e̶d̶ ̶i̶s̶.̶ ̶i̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶s̶e̶e̶ ̶(̶n̶o̶ ̶p̶u̶n̶ ̶i̶n̶t̶e̶n̶d̶e̶d̶)̶ ̶w̶h̶y̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶w̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶n̶k̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶s̶o̶m̶e̶ ̶w̶a̶y̶ ̶m̶o̶r̶e̶ ̶s̶p̶e̶c̶i̶a̶l̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶n̶ ̶a̶n̶y̶ ̶o̶t̶h̶e̶r̶ ̶s̶e̶n̶s̶e̶.̶ ̶r̶e̶d̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶s̶a̶l̶t̶ ̶a̶k̶a̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶s̶e̶c̶o̶n̶d̶ ̶o̶c̶t̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶a̶k̶a̶ ̶s̶m̶o̶o̶t̶h̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶c̶o̶l̶d̶ ̶a̶k̶a̶ ̶r̶o̶t̶t̶e̶n̶ ̶m̶e̶a̶t̶.̶ ̶i̶t̶'̶s̶ ̶p̶a̶r̶t̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶d̶i̶f̶f̶e̶r̶e̶n̶t̶i̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶w̶h̶i̶c̶h̶ ̶w̶e̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶s̶e̶n̶s̶e̶s̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶f̶i̶r̶s̶t̶ ̶p̶l̶a̶c̶e̶.̶ ̶i̶t̶'̶s̶ ̶a̶n̶ ̶a̶b̶i̶l̶i̶t̶y̶ ̶w̶e̶ ̶n̶e̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶s̶u̶r̶v̶i̶v̶e̶,̶ ̶o̶t̶h̶e̶r̶w̶i̶s̶e̶ ̶w̶e̶ ̶w̶o̶u̶l̶d̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶i̶t̶.̶ ̶w̶e̶ ̶e̶x̶p̶e̶r̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶a̶l̶l̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶o̶s̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶s̶ ̶b̶e̶c̶a̶u̶s̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶'̶s̶ ̶h̶o̶w̶ ̶o̶u̶r̶ ̶n̶e̶r̶v̶o̶u̶s̶ ̶s̶y̶s̶t̶e̶m̶ ̶h̶a̶s̶ ̶d̶e̶v̶e̶l̶o̶p̶e̶d̶.̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶e̶n̶v̶i̶r̶o̶n̶m̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶m̶o̶n̶i̶t̶o̶r̶e̶d̶ ̶b̶y̶ ̶o̶u̶r̶ ̶s̶e̶n̶s̶e̶s̶.̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶e̶a̶c̶h̶ ̶s̶e̶n̶s̶e̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶v̶i̶d̶e̶s̶ ̶a̶ ̶r̶a̶n̶g̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶i̶n̶t̶e̶r̶p̶r̶e̶t̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶s̶ ̶w̶h̶i̶c̶h̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶v̶i̶d̶e̶ ̶o̶u̶r̶ ̶e̶x̶p̶e̶r̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶e̶n̶v̶i̶r̶o̶n̶m̶e̶n̶t̶.̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶e̶x̶p̶e̶r̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶r̶e̶d̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶r̶e̶c̶e̶p̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶e̶l̶e̶c̶t̶r̶o̶m̶a̶g̶n̶e̶t̶i̶c̶ ̶w̶a̶v̶e̶s̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶r̶a̶n̶g̶e̶ ̶4̶3̶0̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶4̶8̶0̶ ̶t̶h̶z̶ ̶-̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶m̶o̶r̶e̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶l̶e̶s̶s̶.̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶s̶e̶l̶f̶-̶e̶x̶p̶l̶a̶n̶a̶t̶o̶r̶y̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶l̶o̶o̶k̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶a̶n̶y̶ ̶f̶u̶r̶t̶h̶e̶r̶ ̶c̶o̶m̶p̶l̶e̶x̶i̶t̶y̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶a̶k̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶a̶s̶k̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶w̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶s̶o̶u̶n̶d̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶o̶n̶e̶ ̶h̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶c̶l̶a̶p̶p̶i̶n̶g̶.̶
̶i̶t̶ ̶s̶e̶e̶m̶s̶ ̶a̶ ̶v̶e̶r̶y̶ ̶h̶e̶a̶t̶h̶ ̶r̶o̶b̶i̶n̶s̶o̶n̶/̶r̶u̶b̶e̶ ̶g̶o̶l̶d̶b̶e̶r̶g̶ ̶w̶a̶y̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶l̶o̶o̶k̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶a̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶s̶.̶[̶/̶q̶u̶o̶t̶e̶]̶
̶y̶e̶s̶ ̶i̶ ̶s̶p̶e̶c̶i̶f̶i̶c̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶d̶e̶c̶i̶d̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶s̶t̶u̶d̶y̶ ̶o̶u̶r̶ ̶e̶x̶p̶e̶r̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶l̶i̶g̶h̶t̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶s̶p̶e̶c̶i̶f̶i̶c̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶c̶o̶l̶o̶r̶ ̶r̶e̶d̶.̶ ̶c̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶c̶h̶o̶s̶e̶n̶ ̶a̶n̶y̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶o̶t̶h̶e̶r̶ ̶4̶ ̶s̶e̶n̶s̶e̶s̶.̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶j̶u̶s̶t̶ ̶s̶e̶e̶m̶e̶d̶ ̶e̶a̶s̶i̶e̶r̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶s̶t̶u̶d̶y̶ ̶r̶e̶d̶ ̶b̶e̶c̶a̶u̶s̶e̶ ̶a̶t̶ ̶a̶l̶m̶o̶s̶t̶ ̶a̶n̶y̶ ̶t̶i̶m̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶d̶a̶y̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ ̶w̶i̶l̶l̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶s̶o̶m̶e̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶r̶e̶d̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶ ̶l̶o̶o̶k̶ ̶a̶t̶.̶ ̶i̶f̶ ̶i̶ ̶w̶e̶r̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶s̶t̶u̶d̶y̶ ̶s̶a̶l̶t̶y̶ ̶t̶a̶s̶t̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶n̶ ̶i̶ ̶w̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶c̶a̶r̶r̶y̶ ̶a̶r̶o̶u̶n̶d̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶s̶u̶c̶k̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶s̶a̶l̶t̶ ̶t̶a̶b̶l̶e̶t̶s̶ ̶w̶h̶e̶n̶ ̶i̶ ̶w̶a̶s̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶m̶o̶o̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶n̶k̶ ̶a̶b̶o̶u̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶s̶e̶n̶s̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶.̶ ̶s̶o̶u̶n̶d̶ ̶c̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶u̶s̶e̶d̶ ̶b̶u̶t̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶d̶i̶f̶f̶i̶c̶u̶l̶t̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶h̶e̶a̶r̶ ̶p̶u̶r̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶n̶e̶s̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶n̶o̶r̶m̶a̶l̶ ̶w̶o̶r̶l̶d̶.̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶c̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶c̶o̶u̶r̶s̶e̶ ̶j̶u̶s̶t̶ ̶s̶t̶u̶d̶y̶ ̶s̶o̶u̶n̶d̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶g̶e̶n̶e̶r̶a̶l̶ ̶s̶o̶ ̶a̶n̶y̶ ̶b̶a̶c̶k̶g̶r̶o̶u̶n̶d̶ ̶s̶o̶u̶n̶d̶ ̶w̶i̶l̶l̶ ̶d̶o̶.̶ ̶i̶ ̶l̶i̶k̶e̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶c̶e̶n̶t̶r̶a̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶a̶ ̶p̶a̶r̶t̶i̶c̶u̶l̶a̶r̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶b̶u̶t̶ ̶b̶a̶c̶k̶g̶r̶o̶u̶n̶d̶ ̶s̶o̶u̶n̶d̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶a̶l̶w̶a̶y̶s̶ ̶d̶i̶f̶f̶e̶r̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶d̶i̶f̶f̶e̶r̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶p̶l̶a̶c̶e̶s̶.̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶i̶m̶p̶o̶r̶t̶a̶n̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶n̶k̶ ̶a̶b̶o̶u̶t̶ ̶w̶h̶e̶n̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶t̶a̶s̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶s̶a̶l̶t̶y̶ ̶f̶o̶o̶d̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶s̶e̶e̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶c̶o̶l̶o̶r̶ ̶r̶e̶d̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶h̶e̶a̶r̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶m̶i̶d̶d̶l̶e̶ ̶c̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶a̶w̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶e̶x̶p̶e̶r̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶i̶t̶s̶e̶l̶f̶.̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶g̶e̶t̶ ̶a̶b̶o̶u̶t̶ ̶e̶m̶ ̶w̶a̶v̶e̶s̶,̶ ̶p̶r̶e̶s̶s̶u̶r̶e̶ ̶w̶a̶v̶e̶s̶,̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶c̶h̶e̶m̶i̶c̶a̶l̶s̶.̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶e̶x̶p̶e̶r̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶s̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶c̶a̶u̶s̶e̶d̶ ̶b̶y̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶s̶e̶ ̶p̶h̶y̶s̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ ̶w̶o̶r̶l̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶s̶ ̶b̶u̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶e̶x̶p̶e̶r̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶s̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶p̶e̶r̶t̶i̶e̶s̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶s̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶s̶.̶ ̶i̶f̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶n̶k̶ ̶a̶b̶o̶u̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶e̶x̶p̶e̶r̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶s̶ ̶l̶o̶n̶g̶ ̶e̶n̶o̶u̶g̶h̶,̶ ̶t̶o̶o̶k̶ ̶m̶e̶ ̶2̶0̶ ̶y̶e̶a̶r̶s̶,̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶w̶i̶l̶l̶ ̶e̶v̶e̶n̶t̶u̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶s̶e̶e̶ ̶h̶o̶w̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶r̶e̶d̶,̶ ̶s̶a̶l̶t̶y̶ ̶t̶a̶s̶t̶e̶,̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶c̶ ̶t̶o̶n̶e̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶j̶u̶s̶t̶ ̶s̶u̶r̶r̶o̶g̶a̶t̶e̶s̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶p̶h̶y̶s̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ ̶s̶t̶i̶m̶u̶l̶i̶.̶ ̶
̶
̶w̶h̶e̶n̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶s̶a̶y̶ ̶"̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶e̶x̶p̶e̶r̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶r̶e̶d̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶r̶e̶c̶e̶p̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶e̶l̶e̶c̶t̶r̶o̶m̶a̶g̶n̶e̶t̶i̶c̶ ̶w̶a̶v̶e̶s̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶r̶a̶n̶g̶e̶ ̶4̶3̶0̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶4̶8̶0̶ ̶t̶h̶z̶ ̶-̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶m̶o̶r̶e̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶l̶e̶s̶s̶"̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶c̶e̶r̶t̶a̶i̶n̶l̶y̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶s̶e̶e̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶e̶x̶p̶l̶a̶n̶a̶t̶o̶r̶y̶ ̶g̶a̶p̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶i̶n̶h̶e̶r̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶s̶u̶c̶h̶ ̶a̶ ̶s̶t̶a̶t̶e̶m̶e̶n̶t̶.̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶s̶o̶m̶e̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶m̶o̶r̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶s̶u̶r̶r̶o̶g̶a̶t̶e̶ ̶e̶x̶p̶e̶r̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶r̶e̶d̶.̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶c̶o̶m̶e̶s̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶a̶ ̶f̶u̶r̶t̶h̶e̶r̶ ̶s̶t̶e̶p̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶c̶e̶s̶s̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶c̶h̶a̶i̶n̶.̶ ̶w̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶e̶x̶p̶e̶r̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶r̶e̶d̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶?̶ ̶d̶o̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶b̶e̶l̶i̶e̶v̶e̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶d̶i̶r̶e̶c̶t̶l̶y̶ ̶e̶x̶p̶e̶r̶i̶e̶n̶c̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶r̶e̶d̶ ̶l̶i̶g̶h̶t̶ ̶i̶t̶s̶e̶l̶f̶?̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶c̶l̶e̶a̶r̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶n̶e̶u̶r̶a̶l̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶c̶e̶s̶s̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶c̶h̶a̶i̶n̶ ̶c̶o̶m̶p̶l̶e̶t̶e̶l̶y̶ ̶s̶e̶p̶a̶r̶a̶t̶e̶s̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶f̶r̶o̶m̶ ̶s̶e̶e̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶r̶e̶d̶ ̶l̶i̶g̶h̶t̶ ̶i̶t̶s̶e̶l̶f̶.̶ ̶i̶f̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶u̶n̶d̶e̶r̶s̶t̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶r̶e̶d̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶s̶e̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶a̶ ̶d̶i̶r̶e̶c̶t̶ ̶e̶x̶p̶e̶r̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶r̶e̶d̶ ̶l̶i̶g̶h̶t̶ ̶i̶t̶s̶e̶l̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶n̶ ̶w̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶s̶e̶e̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶h̶o̶w̶ ̶d̶o̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶s̶e̶e̶ ̶i̶t̶?̶ ̶m̶a̶y̶b̶e̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶s̶e̶e̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶a̶ ̶s̶u̶r̶r̶o̶g̶a̶t̶e̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶r̶e̶d̶ ̶l̶i̶g̶h̶t̶?̶ ̶i̶f̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶a̶g̶r̶e̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶n̶ ̶w̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶s̶u̶r̶r̶o̶g̶a̶t̶e̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶h̶o̶w̶ ̶d̶o̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶s̶e̶e̶ ̶i̶t̶?̶
̶
̶s̶a̶l̶t̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶a̶ ̶c̶h̶e̶m̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶h̶a̶s̶ ̶n̶o̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶p̶e̶r̶t̶y̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶a̶s̶t̶e̶.̶ ̶n̶o̶ ̶c̶h̶e̶m̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ ̶h̶a̶s̶ ̶a̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶p̶e̶r̶t̶y̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶a̶s̶t̶e̶.̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶t̶a̶s̶t̶e̶ ̶e̶x̶p̶e̶r̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶s̶e̶p̶a̶r̶a̶t̶e̶ ̶f̶r̶o̶m̶ ̶a̶n̶y̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶p̶e̶r̶t̶i̶e̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶c̶h̶e̶m̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ ̶h̶a̶s̶.̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶t̶a̶s̶t̶e̶ ̶e̶x̶p̶e̶r̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶a̶ ̶s̶u̶r̶r̶o̶g̶a̶t̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶e̶x̶p̶e̶r̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶p̶l̶a̶c̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶d̶i̶r̶e̶c̶t̶ ̶e̶x̶p̶e̶r̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶a̶n̶y̶ ̶a̶c̶t̶u̶a̶l̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶p̶e̶r̶t̶y̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶s̶a̶l̶t̶.̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶ ̶o̶n̶l̶y̶ ̶d̶e̶t̶e̶c̶t̶ ̶s̶a̶l̶t̶.̶ ̶w̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶t̶a̶s̶t̶e̶ ̶e̶x̶p̶e̶r̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶?̶ ̶h̶o̶w̶ ̶d̶o̶ ̶w̶e̶ ̶e̶x̶p̶e̶r̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶i̶t̶?̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶s̶e̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶u̶n̶a̶n̶s̶w̶e̶r̶e̶d̶ ̶q̶u̶e̶s̶t̶i̶o̶n̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶s̶c̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶n̶e̶e̶d̶s̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶g̶e̶t̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶w̶o̶r̶k̶ ̶o̶n̶.̶ ̶s̶c̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶ ̶t̶a̶l̶k̶ ̶a̶b̶o̶u̶t̶ ̶a̶l̶l̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶n̶e̶u̶r̶a̶l̶ ̶a̶c̶t̶i̶v̶i̶t̶y̶ ̶i̶n̶v̶o̶l̶v̶e̶d̶ ̶d̶u̶r̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶a̶ ̶s̶a̶l̶t̶y̶ ̶t̶a̶s̶t̶e̶ ̶e̶x̶p̶e̶r̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶b̶u̶t̶ ̶s̶c̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶m̶ ̶a̶ ̶c̶h̶a̶i̶n̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶c̶a̶u̶s̶a̶l̶ ̶e̶v̶e̶n̶t̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶l̶e̶a̶d̶s̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶a̶c̶t̶u̶a̶l̶ ̶t̶a̶s̶t̶e̶ ̶e̶x̶p̶e̶r̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶i̶t̶s̶e̶l̶f̶.̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶t̶i̶m̶e̶ ̶w̶h̶e̶n̶ ̶s̶c̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶c̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶s̶a̶y̶ ̶"̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶n̶e̶u̶r̶o̶n̶s̶ ̶f̶i̶r̶e̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶e̶x̶p̶l̶a̶i̶n̶s̶ ̶i̶t̶"̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶o̶v̶e̶r̶.̶ ̶s̶c̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶s̶h̶o̶w̶s̶ ̶a̶ ̶g̶l̶a̶r̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶s̶o̶p̶h̶o̶m̶o̶r̶i̶c̶ ̶i̶g̶n̶o̶r̶a̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶a̶c̶t̶u̶a̶l̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶b̶l̶e̶m̶ ̶w̶h̶e̶n̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶s̶a̶y̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶s̶e̶ ̶k̶i̶n̶d̶s̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶s̶.̶
dude go away, you want to discuss nothing here. you're like gorgeous, shaka and placid
:paladin:

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Sat Aug 11, 2018 12:14 pm

Poodle wrote:Oh - then I think there's been a communication hiatus, Steve. I have been assuming that colour vision (particularly red) is your bugbear. Now it appears that you are talking about sensory perception in general. Would that be correct? If it is, then we have to begin again, and you have to learn to express yourself more precisely. Over to you.
It is not necessary for me to recite the whole history of what I have said on this forum every time I post. You will find that I have certainly talked about general Sensory Perception and I have stated multiple times that I like to stick with one aspect namely the perception of Red. The hope is that If we can figure out what Red is then that would unlock the door to everything else. But any other Sensory Perception aspect would also do the job. The Inter Mind website makes my intentions completely clear.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Sat Aug 11, 2018 12:21 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote: I gave it my best shot. Sorry I was unable to convince you. Bye.
Making every signoff only penultimate, or this an epilogue, I'm struck that you want to "convince" anyone of anything. Now....for sure...I argue with just about everyone about just about everything but its not really for the point of getting them to agree with me. Rather, its to find the best position, to find what might be a weakness or what is just simply wrong in my own position. TO CHANGE MY MIND. The only hurdle I find, is the best argument. This would not be the case if it were my intent to change anyone's mind. To avoid stronger arguments. To not change my mind.

There is something very dishonest, manipulative, and basically "evil" in "wanting" to change another persons mind. Violates another's autonomy. Violates any search for the truth. Changing another persons mind while your own mind is open to change, both parties reaching some kind of mutually beneficial middle ground when found is distinctly different.

I agree, the distinction can be a close call, or even a fantasy and ego stroke. Or...just the opposite.

Closed Minds vs Open Minds. Interesting.
I posted the Inter Mind website specifically to draw the fire that I get. Of course I want to convince people of my views on Consciousness. But I also listen.

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10184
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Poodle » Sat Aug 11, 2018 1:39 pm

OK Steve - back to basics. We have five senses - sight, smell, touch, hearing and taste. All animals, and some plants, have at least one of those senses, if only in basic form.
Humans do not see in the IR or UV ranges, but some other animals can - and that extension to the 'normal' spectrum is invariably a survival adaptation closely related to the environment or special requirements. We can, probably, extrapolate this to claim that our senses have been vital to our survival as a species. In fact, we would be a little bit dense not to so extrapolate.
But why do we need the ability to not only coarsely sense stuff from our environment, but also to be able to distinguish gradations within the available spectra? I'm going to go out on a limb here (sarcasm alert) and claim that such ability is also a survival trait, aiding us in our ability to identify potential food, potential threat, potential mates - you name any potential and it probably helps. But to develop and use such potential, our brains need to be able to process incoming information and place it upon the spectra available to us - if it buzzes and is yellow and black it can make you say 'Ouch' if you bother it but if you follow it you may find a pile of honey. Or it may be a wasp or hornet, so use your highly developed senses to spot the difference in shape and save yourself a whole load of wasted time.
Sit yourself in front of a blazing log fire this next Christmas. Nice, isn't it - especially if you have a glass of grog to keep you happy. Move closer (otherwise known as moving up the spectrum). And closer. And closer. Are you still comfortable? No, of course you're not, and now you see the value of our ability to identify the extreme ends (or the bits in between) of sensory spectra. Wait - can you hear that distant roar of a potential predator. Yes? You're going to be OK because you know, by differentiating within a spectrum, that's it's some way away - you have plenty of time to depart safely.
I needn't go on. I've demonstrated that sensory spectra are incredibly useful things. So you can stop wondering what the experience of red is - it's an identification within a sensory spectrum. It tells us that certain fruits are ripe, certain other fruits are poisonous, something's bleeding, there's dust in the atmosphere, there's a fire ... ... ...
What was the question again?

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8867
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by landrew » Sat Aug 11, 2018 2:34 pm

Color is simply more information than gray-scale. Nothing more esoteric than that.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15564
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Aug 11, 2018 9:41 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote: I gave it my best shot. Sorry I was unable to convince you. Bye.
Making every signoff only penultimate, or this an epilogue, I'm struck that you want to "convince" anyone of anything. Now....for sure...I argue with just about everyone about just about everything but its not really for the point of getting them to agree with me. Rather, its to find the best position, to find what might be a weakness or what is just simply wrong in my own position. TO CHANGE MY MIND. The only hurdle I find, is the best argument. This would not be the case if it were my intent to change anyone's mind. To avoid stronger arguments. To not change my mind.

There is something very dishonest, manipulative, and basically "evil" in "wanting" to change another persons mind. Violates another's autonomy. Violates any search for the truth. Changing another persons mind while your own mind is open to change, both parties reaching some kind of mutually beneficial middle ground when found is distinctly different.

I agree, the distinction can be a close call, or even a fantasy and ego stroke. Or...just the opposite.

Closed Minds vs Open Minds. Interesting.
I posted the Inter Mind website specifically to draw the fire that I get. Of course I want to convince people of my views on Consciousness. But I also listen.
"Just when I think i'm out, they pull me back in." //// Listening was not the relevant issue presented to you. Listening is not enough, Obviously. Reread and think about it until you see a light at the end of the tunnel.

But i'm not waiting.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun Aug 12, 2018 11:08 am

Poodle wrote:OK Steve - back to basics. We have five senses - sight, smell, touch, hearing and taste. All animals, and some plants, have at least one of those senses, if only in basic form.
Humans do not see in the IR or UV ranges, but some other animals can - and that extension to the 'normal' spectrum is invariably a survival adaptation closely related to the environment or special requirements. We can, probably, extrapolate this to claim that our senses have been vital to our survival as a species. In fact, we would be a little bit dense not to so extrapolate.
But why do we need the ability to not only coarsely sense stuff from our environment, but also to be able to distinguish gradations within the available spectra? I'm going to go out on a limb here (sarcasm alert) and claim that such ability is also a survival trait, aiding us in our ability to identify potential food, potential threat, potential mates - you name any potential and it probably helps. But to develop and use such potential, our brains need to be able to process incoming information and place it upon the spectra available to us - if it buzzes and is yellow and black it can make you say 'Ouch' if you bother it but if you follow it you may find a pile of honey. Or it may be a wasp or hornet, so use your highly developed senses to spot the difference in shape and save yourself a whole load of wasted time.
Sit yourself in front of a blazing log fire this next Christmas. Nice, isn't it - especially if you have a glass of grog to keep you happy. Move closer (otherwise known as moving up the spectrum). And closer. And closer. Are you still comfortable? No, of course you're not, and now you see the value of our ability to identify the extreme ends (or the bits in between) of sensory spectra. Wait - can you hear that distant roar of a potential predator. Yes? You're going to be OK because you know, by differentiating within a spectrum, that's it's some way away - you have plenty of time to depart safely.
I needn't go on. I've demonstrated that sensory spectra are incredibly useful things. So you can stop wondering what the experience of red is - it's an identification within a sensory spectrum. It tells us that certain fruits are ripe, certain other fruits are poisonous, something's bleeding, there's dust in the atmosphere, there's a fire ... ... ...
What was the question again?
Everything you say is true as far as why we have developed these senses. You say about Red: "It's an identification within a sensory spectrum" and then you say that explains it. I am actually surprised that you can not see the huge Explanatory Gap there with respect to how we actually See the Red. You are talking about the Why but the question is about the How.

Let me ask a couple of questions: Do you believe you are Directly experiencing some aspect of the Red Light itself? Or are you at least acknowledging that you are experiencing some internal event in your Mind when you See Red?

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun Aug 12, 2018 11:14 am

landrew wrote:Color is simply more information than gray-scale. Nothing more esoteric than that.
I would like to ask you the same questions I asked Poodle: Do you believe you are Directly experiencing some aspect of the Red Light itself? Or are you at least acknowledging that you are experiencing some internal event in your Mind when you See Red?

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun Aug 12, 2018 11:20 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote: I gave it my best shot. Sorry I was unable to convince you. Bye.
Making every signoff only penultimate, or this an epilogue, I'm struck that you want to "convince" anyone of anything. Now....for sure...I argue with just about everyone about just about everything but its not really for the point of getting them to agree with me. Rather, its to find the best position, to find what might be a weakness or what is just simply wrong in my own position. TO CHANGE MY MIND. The only hurdle I find, is the best argument. This would not be the case if it were my intent to change anyone's mind. To avoid stronger arguments. To not change my mind.

There is something very dishonest, manipulative, and basically "evil" in "wanting" to change another persons mind. Violates another's autonomy. Violates any search for the truth. Changing another persons mind while your own mind is open to change, both parties reaching some kind of mutually beneficial middle ground when found is distinctly different.

I agree, the distinction can be a close call, or even a fantasy and ego stroke. Or...just the opposite.

Closed Minds vs Open Minds. Interesting.
I posted the Inter Mind website specifically to draw the fire that I get. Of course I want to convince people of my views on Consciousness. But I also listen.
"Just when I think i'm out, they pull me back in." //// Listening was not the relevant issue presented to you. Listening is not enough, Obviously. Reread and think about it until you see a light at the end of the tunnel.

But i'm not waiting.
Ok if that's not enough then let me just say that I think you're getting a little Weird when you say things like "There is something very dishonest, manipulative, and basically "evil" in "wanting" to change another persons mind". You reread and think about what I have said. Especially reread, as if you have ever read, my website at: http://TheInterMind.com

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10184
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Poodle » Sun Aug 12, 2018 12:42 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:... Do you believe you are Directly experiencing some aspect of the Red Light itself? Or are you at least acknowledging that you are experiencing some internal event in your Mind when you See Red?
You are attempting to set up a metaphysical scenario where none is called for. You think you see a mystery in our perception of the physical world, whereas I see no reason for that claim. 'Direct experience of some aspect of the red light itself' is a way-over-the-top method of expressing the simple biological fact - we have evolved colour vision which covers a reasonable and CONTINUOUS bandwidth. There is no place at which red begins or ends. The mapping of frequency to perceived colour is an involuntary mental process which both you and I have and, so long as neither of us suffers from vision deficiencies, is the same for each of us. You cannot experience some aspect of the Red Light because there is no red light - just electromagnetic radiation within a band of frequencies. Nor can you claim an internal event in the mind ( I mean - what's the mind?) when the visual process is a result of the eyes, the optic nerves and the brain working as a co-ordinated system.
The brain has no interface with the external world other than its sensory mechanisms. These things have evolved to do what they do because there is a survival advantage. The almost cinematic interpretation you are putting on the gathering of sensory data is, I believe, not representative of the real world. You are asking questions which do not fit the reality of the situation in the hope that you will elicit support for a poor conjecture.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun Aug 12, 2018 2:57 pm

Poodle wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:... Do you believe you are Directly experiencing some aspect of the Red Light itself? Or are you at least acknowledging that you are experiencing some internal event in your Mind when you See Red?
You are attempting to set up a metaphysical scenario where none is called for. You think you see a mystery in our perception of the physical world, whereas I see no reason for that claim. 'Direct experience of some aspect of the red light itself' is a way-over-the-top method of expressing the simple biological fact - we have evolved colour vision which covers a reasonable and CONTINUOUS bandwidth. There is no place at which red begins or ends. The mapping of frequency to perceived colour is an involuntary mental process which both you and I have and, so long as neither of us suffers from vision deficiencies, is the same for each of us. You cannot experience some aspect of the Red Light because there is no red light - just electromagnetic radiation within a band of frequencies. Nor can you claim an internal event in the mind ( I mean - what's the mind?) when the visual process is a result of the eyes, the optic nerves and the brain working as a co-ordinated system.
The brain has no interface with the external world other than its sensory mechanisms. These things have evolved to do what they do because there is a survival advantage. The almost cinematic interpretation you are putting on the gathering of sensory data is, I believe, not representative of the real world. You are asking questions which do not fit the reality of the situation in the hope that you will elicit support for a poor conjecture.
From this I get that you don't believe you are Directly experiencing the Electromagnetic Red Light. Very good so far. You then say there is a mapping of Frequency to perceived Color. So you are suggesting that you believe you are at least experiencing "Something" when there is Electromagnetic Red Light. Then you say that it can not be claimed that anything is happening in the Mind when you are perceiving the Red color. Then where is this mapping from frequency to perceived Color happening? I am still surprised that you cannot see the huge Explanatory Gap involved with everything you have said about the mapping.

A Metaphysical scenario may not be necessary if Science could just say what the Red experience is in terms of Brains and Neurons. Implied in all this is the Experiencer. This is another aspect of Consciousness that Science can say nothing about other than not to think about it because it does not exist.