The Inter Mind

What you think about how you think.
User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8820
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by landrew » Sun Aug 12, 2018 4:24 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
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?
I see red primarily as information. A red strawberry is ripe, and a green one is not. Secondarily, I see it aesthetically, as in "I prefer that car in red." I prefer to buy a steak when it's more red than brown.

Anything else?
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 831
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun Aug 12, 2018 7:06 pm

landrew wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:
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?
I see red primarily as information. A red strawberry is ripe, and a green one is not. Secondarily, I see it aesthetically, as in "I prefer that car in red." I prefer to buy a steak when it's more red than brown.

Anything else?
From your answer I think you are saying that you believe the Red is out there in the World and not a creation of your Mind. Is that correct?

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8820
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by landrew » Sun Aug 12, 2018 7:33 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
landrew wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:
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?
I see red primarily as information. A red strawberry is ripe, and a green one is not. Secondarily, I see it aesthetically, as in "I prefer that car in red." I prefer to buy a steak when it's more red than brown.

Anything else?
From your answer I think you are saying that you believe the Red is out there in the World and not a creation of your Mind. Is that correct?
Red is simple physics. So are the neural synapses that form around my perception of "red."
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15515
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Aug 12, 2018 8:54 pm

Lots of info on how/what the eye sees and how the brain interprets it. I've heard it all before, forgot most of it, nice to see it all together...….and just finally deterimined all my Comcast HD signals are at 720p when I've been paying for 1080 for 2 years. I'm pissed. …..beyond that.....there is a lot of difference in the quality of the 720 as well. I'm guessing some of that is actually upgraded 480? New box coming supposed to correct it...….we'll see.

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?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15515
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Aug 12, 2018 8:56 pm

Oops...…..point is...…...4 K is being pushed on us as is Smart TV. I don't need or want either. I'll look for a straight 1080 TV but doubt I'll get it. The market rules.
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: 10154
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 10:09 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:... 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 ...
Steve, you keep shooting the same arrow. There is NO Electromagnetic Red Light, with or without initial caps, for your brain to play with. Light - the whole cartload of what is available - enters your eyes and the rods and cones do their own bit of business with frequency and intensity, before sending the resultant data via the optic nerves to the brain. The 'experience' you are demanding has already been defined yet the information hasn't yet reached your brain. The mapping has already been done by the rods and cones because that's what they do - that, and nothing else, determines the 'experience' you are looking for. It is a straightforward biological function. The rods and cones have no volition and you have no choice. Assuming you have normal colour vision and normal sensitivity, you can attest that you have received it. Note - 'it', by then, is information, not light. Light doesn't make it past the backs of your eyes. The moment of differentiation has occurred before you can claim that your brain has received a signal. There is no direct experience of light other than within your eyes. Red is merely the label applied to a particular reaction of the cones and even that is not definitive - if your rods are signalling low light levels, then your 'experience' will be moved toward the blue end of the spectrum.
You are imbuing an everyday electrochemical action with a sense of transcendental mystery. You are multiplying entities unnecessarily, and William of Occam would not be a happy chappie.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 831
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun Aug 12, 2018 10:44 pm

landrew wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:
landrew wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:
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?
I see red primarily as information. A red strawberry is ripe, and a green one is not. Secondarily, I see it aesthetically, as in "I prefer that car in red." I prefer to buy a steak when it's more red than brown.

Anything else?
From your answer I think you are saying that you believe the Red is out there in the World and not a creation of your Mind. Is that correct?
Red is simple physics. So are the neural synapses that form around my perception of "red."
If it's so simple then how do those Neural Synapses produce your perception of Red?

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 831
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun Aug 12, 2018 10:58 pm

Poodle wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:... 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 ...
Steve, you keep shooting the same arrow. There is NO Electromagnetic Red Light, with or without initial caps, for your brain to play with. Light - the whole cartload of what is available - enters your eyes and the rods and cones do their own bit of business with frequency and intensity, before sending the resultant data via the optic nerves to the brain. The 'experience' you are demanding has already been defined yet the information hasn't yet reached your brain. The mapping has already been done by the rods and cones because that's what they do - that, and nothing else, determines the 'experience' you are looking for. It is a straightforward biological function. The rods and cones have no volition and you have no choice. Assuming you have normal colour vision and normal sensitivity, you can attest that you have received it. Note - 'it', by then, is information, not light. Light doesn't make it past the backs of your eyes. The moment of differentiation has occurred before you can claim that your brain has received a signal. There is no direct experience of light other than within your eyes. Red is merely the label applied to a particular reaction of the cones and even that is not definitive - if your rods are signalling low light levels, then your 'experience' will be moved toward the blue end of the spectrum.
You are imbuing an everyday electrochemical action with a sense of transcendental mystery. You are multiplying entities unnecessarily, and William of Occam would not be a happy chappie.
I understand that you understand that there is a chain of processing that happens. But you say things like "Red is merely the Label applied ..." as if that explains anything. Ok how is it that I can See that Red Label? What is it that is Seeing that Red Label? Unbelievable that you don't realize the huge Explanatory Gap in what you are saying.

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10154
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 11:07 pm

It's your insistence upon an explanatory gap which I suspect is steering you along an error-strewn course, Steve. It's too late now and I'm too tired to dive in again at the moment. But I'll be refreshed tomorrow.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8820
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by landrew » Sun Aug 12, 2018 11:40 pm

SteveKlinko wrote: If it's so simple then how do those Neural Synapses produce your perception of Red?
Why is this relevant?
I didn't say it was simple, but it is a biochemical process.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 831
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun Aug 12, 2018 11:53 pm

landrew wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote: If it's so simple then how do those Neural Synapses produce your perception of Red?
Why is this relevant?
I didn't say it was simple, but it is a biochemical process.
I'm not saying it can't be a Biochemical process. Science has known that for a hundred years. But Science can not say how that Biochemical process produces an experience of Red. That's all I want to know.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 831
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun Aug 12, 2018 11:56 pm

Poodle wrote:It's your insistence upon an explanatory gap which I suspect is steering you along an error-strewn course, Steve. It's too late now and I'm too tired to dive in again at the moment. But I'll be refreshed tomorrow.
I must have worn you out. Good night.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8820
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by landrew » Mon Aug 13, 2018 12:04 am

SteveKlinko wrote:
landrew wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote: If it's so simple then how do those Neural Synapses produce your perception of Red?
Why is this relevant?
I didn't say it was simple, but it is a biochemical process.
I'm not saying it can't be a Biochemical process. Science has known that for a hundred years. But Science can not say how that Biochemical process produces an experience of Red. That's all I want to know.
Science has a better handle on the biochemical process of how neurons store and link "bits," than how neural networks create intelligence and consciousness.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29537
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Bad Science with Steve Klinko

Post by Matthew Ellard » Mon Aug 13, 2018 2:16 am

SteveKlinko wrote: If it's so simple then how do those Neural Synapses produce your perception of Red?
Bad Science by Steve Klinko
Steve Klinko has composed a religious document on his web-page to sell his "Inter Mind" T-shirts and has not produced a science paper. Steve Klinko has not created a scientific hypothesis that allows for any testing or falsification at all.


When we point out holes in his logic and knowledge, Steve Klinko switches the onus around, and says "explain your scientific theory" although he has no scientific alternative hypothesis to offer.

However we can show the numerous errors in Steve Klinko's predicated steps.



Evidence colour perception must be physical brain
Steve Klinko's religious view is predicated on there being a non-physical mind, separate from the evolved physical brain. Steve claims that this non-physical "thingee" performs undefined magic by gathering normal physics from normal brain cells, somehow making colours and somehow magically reintegrating this data with the normal physical brain.


It's all in the physical DNA Data
If skeptics say colour perception is an evolved combination of neurons, that advantageously assign an illusion of colour in our minds, to different electromagnetic frequencies, to allow better assessment of the environment, Steve Klinko demands we set out exactly what this combination or sequence of neurons is. However we don't need to do that. We only need to show that this neuron combination is carried in human DNA which produce physical things like neurons. It must be a completely physical brain process

Steve Klinko's religious claim falls apart when he can't say how this non-physical brain is carried from humans to their offspring. If Steve Klinko pretends that our DNA data can magically create non physical "minds" then Steve Klinko needs to explain how DNA creates anything other than carbon molecule chains. :lol:


How did Steve Klinko's non-physical mind evolve?
We know that both the human physical brain and eye have evolved through normal evolution. Humans share DNA sequences with very simple chordates. Steve Klinko does not believe in evolution and is claiming magic occurs concerning "red" yet most chordates do not perceive red at all. Somehow, as chordates became more complex Steve Klinko thinks a "non-physical mind" suddenly popped in from nowhere and through another magical process, evolved at the same time as the normal physical brain. This is obviously religious nonsense.


Now watch Steve Klinko avoid responding to any of these points :lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10154
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 » Mon Aug 13, 2018 6:29 am

OK - sleep's a wonderful thing.
Steve, you keep asking the same question, which is, in a nutshell, "What is the experience of red?" You are doing this despite repeated explanations of spectra of sensory information. You do NOT experience red - you are sensitive to a fixed number of ranges of sensory data determined by your physical make-up which is, in turn, determined by millions of years of evolution. You experience whatever information is around as detected by your five sensory systems - all of it at the same time - because that is what keeps you safe in the big, bad environment surrounding you. Sensory data is constantly available to you, but not always received at maximum sensitivity - you have to sleep sometimes (No - don't go there. That's another issue altogether).
Let's shift back to the purely auditory for a moment and pick up middle C again. What is the experience of middle C? What does middle C have which singles it out for special consideration or, dare I say it, mystical appreciation? Well - nothing. The physical environmental vibration now labelled middle C has been around since before we ever existed. Imagine a population of amorphous blobs in prehistory which have (because there was nothing to stop them) developed pseudo-tympanic membranes. An outside observer (had there been any) may soon have noticed that the blobs with tympanic membrane Type F were becoming prevalent and, after investigation, may have reached the conclusion that, in particular, tympanic membrane type F(4) seemed to offer strong survival advantage. You know what that all means, Steve, so I needn't go further with tympanic membranes.
But what about those photosensitive structures which have been developing at the same time? It appears that photosensitive structure Type 7g has become prevalent amongst the blob population, and it also appears that 7g performs particularly strongly when dealing with the the frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum quite strongly emitted by the Sun (a local physical phenomenon without which there would be no blobs in the first place). It's almost as if the local deity had proclaimed "Let there be red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and violet", because that's the range of maximum sensitivity of blob vision. I say 'vision' to distinguish this ability from the tactile stuff which can, strangely enough, deal with the infra-red part of the spectrum quite well. A bit hot in here, isn't it?
But back to our primitive environment. If our blobs turn their 'faces' to the sun (luckily, they don't actually have eyes yet so that's not too damaging) which, strangely enough, a lot of plants can do even these days, they 'see' all the visible light available - the whole gamut. But when they look at anything which is merely illuminated by the sun rather than being the sun itself, they see an 'edited' version of light. It appears, conveniently enough for this tale, that physical objects actually absorb certain parts of the visible spectrum and reflect others - and it is those remnant parts which impinge upon the blobbish world. Surprisingly, any barely intelligent blob would have realised, had it developed a brain, that physical objects absorb light in different ways, and it's what's left after that absorption has taken place which determines what the primitive blob sensory system 'sees'. Some types of blob food absorb all but blue wavelengths and so appear blue. Some types absorb all but red wavelengths and so (prepare yourself, Steve - this will come as a shock) appear red. The primitive blob visual apparatus has done nothing but absorb ALL available light - that's simply what it does - but in this one case, the only light available happens to be within that range of frequencies we now (being highly intelligent super-blobs) define as 'red'.
So you see, Steve, you are not experiencing red at all. You're experiencing all the light which is available when you're looking in that very specific direction. It is the ABSENCE of other frequencies which defines red. Your experience is ALWAYS of all available light - your visual apparatus does not have the ability to single out and concentrate upon any particular part of the visible spectrum. Your experience is not in any way elective. THERE IS NO SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE OF RED. It is ALWAYS the experience of all available light. Asking 'what is the experience of red' is a meaningless exercise.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29537
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Matthew Ellard » Mon Aug 13, 2018 6:45 am

Poodle wrote:...... your visual apparatus does not have the ability to single out and concentrate upon any particular part of the visible spectrum. Your experience is not in any way elective. THERE IS NO SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE OF RED. it is ALWAYS the experience of all available light.
Excellent logic. I'm jealous I didn't think of this.

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10154
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 » Mon Aug 13, 2018 6:54 am

:neener: Oscar Wilde: I wish I had said that.
James McNeill Whistler: You will, Oscar, you will.
:neener: :neener:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15515
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Bad Science with Steve Klinko

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Aug 13, 2018 11:16 am

Matthew Ellard wrote: This is obviously religious nonsense.
Gee Matt, your analysis is that its just a con game to sell merchandise and then you lay it off on religion? ...........Hmmmm.......nonsense posing as religion? All the same words, but a different meaning? Red, red, 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?

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 831
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Mon Aug 13, 2018 11:43 am

Poodle wrote:OK - sleep's a wonderful thing.
Steve, you keep asking the same question, which is, in a nutshell, "What is the experience of red?" You are doing this despite repeated explanations of spectra of sensory information. You do NOT experience red - you are sensitive to a fixed number of ranges of sensory data determined by your physical make-up which is, in turn, determined by millions of years of evolution. You experience whatever information is around as detected by your five sensory systems - all of it at the same time - because that is what keeps you safe in the big, bad environment surrounding you. Sensory data is constantly available to you, but not always received at maximum sensitivity - you have to sleep sometimes (No - don't go there. That's another issue altogether).
Let's shift back to the purely auditory for a moment and pick up middle C again. What is the experience of middle C? What does middle C have which singles it out for special consideration or, dare I say it, mystical appreciation? Well - nothing. The physical environmental vibration now labelled middle C has been around since before we ever existed. Imagine a population of amorphous blobs in prehistory which have (because there was nothing to stop them) developed pseudo-tympanic membranes. An outside observer (had there been any) may soon have noticed that the blobs with tympanic membrane Type F were becoming prevalent and, after investigation, may have reached the conclusion that, in particular, tympanic membrane type F(4) seemed to offer strong survival advantage. You know what that all means, Steve, so I needn't go further with tympanic membranes.
But what about those photosensitive structures which have been developing at the same time? It appears that photosensitive structure Type 7g has become prevalent amongst the blob population, and it also appears that 7g performs particularly strongly when dealing with the the frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum quite strongly emitted by the Sun (a local physical phenomenon without which there would be no blobs in the first place). It's almost as if the local deity had proclaimed "Let there be red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and violet", because that's the range of maximum sensitivity of blob vision. I say 'vision' to distinguish this ability from the tactile stuff which can, strangely enough, deal with the infra-red part of the spectrum quite well. A bit hot in here, isn't it?
But back to our primitive environment. If our blobs turn their 'faces' to the sun (luckily, they don't actually have eyes yet so that's not too damaging) which, strangely enough, a lot of plants can do even these days, they 'see' all the visible light available - the whole gamut. But when they look at anything which is merely illuminated by the sun rather than being the sun itself, they see an 'edited' version of light. It appears, conveniently enough for this tale, that physical objects actually absorb certain parts of the visible spectrum and reflect others - and it is those remnant parts which impinge upon the blobbish world. Surprisingly, any barely intelligent blob would have realised, had it developed a brain, that physical objects absorb light in different ways, and it's what's left after that absorption has taken place which determines what the primitive blob sensory system 'sees'. Some types of blob food absorb all but blue wavelengths and so appear blue. Some types absorb all but red wavelengths and so (prepare yourself, Steve - this will come as a shock) appear red. The primitive blob visual apparatus has done nothing but absorb ALL available light - that's simply what it does - but in this one case, the only light available happens to be within that range of frequencies we now (being highly intelligent super-blobs) define as 'red'.
So you see, Steve, you are not experiencing red at all. You're experiencing all the light which is available when you're looking in that very specific direction. It is the ABSENCE of other frequencies which defines red. Your experience is ALWAYS of all available light - your visual apparatus does not have the ability to single out and concentrate upon any particular part of the visible spectrum. Your experience is not in any way elective. THERE IS NO SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE OF RED. It is ALWAYS the experience of all available light. Asking 'what is the experience of red' is a meaningless exercise.
Good Morning. Liked the story. You were doing good until near the end where you said: "your visual apparatus does not have the ability to single out and concentrate upon any particular part of the visible spectrum." Yes the Light is a combination of all Wavelengths before coming into contact with the Visual system. The first stage of Color separation is in the optical front end. The wavelengths are separated out spatially over the Retina so that the coverage matches the scene you are looking at. If there is a Red object then there will be primarily Red Light hitting the Retina over the area of the Retina where the Red object exists. The normal Retinal Cones fire selectively in three bands of Color, the usual Red, Green, and Blue. So your Visual system certainly does have the ability to single out and concentrate on three separate bands of wavelengths. Your Visual Cortex has areas of Neurons (the Color Blobs) that fire selectively for the three Colors. Not sure if your story was in some way referring to the Visual Cortex Blobs or if that was a coincidence. In any case when there is Red Light (say 690nm) the Red Cones and Red Cortex Blobs will be activated. This does produce a Red Experience for the Red object. You can deny this all you want. We do have Red experiences. I want to know how the Neural activity can produce the Red experience. Sorry but a Red experience is part of the Reality of the World you live in.

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10154
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 » Mon Aug 13, 2018 1:01 pm

Well, that's interesting, Steve, So now you're claiming that your personal visual system enables you to have the ability to exclude all colour information except redness. Sorry, Steve, but I'm calling BS on that one. If your eyes are open, and assuming that you are not blindfolded or otherwise visually impaired, you are having a complete visual experience. Colour vision has no voluntary component other than closing your eyes.
As what you have said appears to be so nonsensical, I want to give you the opportunity to re-examine it and try again. Off you go, then.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 831
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Mon Aug 13, 2018 2:20 pm

Poodle wrote:Well, that's interesting, Steve, So now you're claiming that your personal visual system enables you to have the ability to exclude all colour information except redness. Sorry, Steve, but I'm calling BS on that one. If your eyes are open, and assuming that you are not blindfolded or otherwise visually impaired, you are having a complete visual experience. Colour vision has no voluntary component other than closing your eyes.
As what you have said appears to be so nonsensical, I want to give you the opportunity to re-examine it and try again. Off you go, then.
It's impossible that you don't understand what I said. So I know you understand that the visual scene is separated Spatially on the Retina and that Red objects will cover a specific area of the Retina with Red Light. Are you really quibbling about the fact that there might be other Colors on different parts of the Retina? Ok then lets specify it this way: There will be a Red experience associated with an area of the Retina that is receiving Red Light.

But I guess you believe there is no such thing as a Red experience in spite of the fact that it is right there in front of your face. Look at something Red and honestly tell me you are not having a Red experience.

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10154
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 » Mon Aug 13, 2018 4:58 pm

Interesting response, Steve. BS (I had to check), but interesting. It is true that some cones will react preferentially to red light (or any other colour), but these are not confined to exclusive parts of the retina. The visual scene is NOT split apart, the various sections being sent to different retinal areas and then the entire scene being reassembled further down the chain. It IS (apparently) true that different colours of light are mapped onto different parts of the visual cortex (NOT the retina per se). And so what? By the time your brain is telling you what the world looks like, everything is the right way up and electromagnetic radiation is interpreted as a spectrum of colour in a non-chaotic manner, giving a visual experience upon which we can all agree. Do you have an Upside-Down World Experience? No, you don't. Do you have a Colour World Experience? Yes, you do. Do you have a Red World Experience? No, you don't - unless everything you're looking at is actually red. You experience the world in full colour if there is enough ambient light in the first place and if the objects you are looking at reflect the full colour spectrum. There is nothing supernatural or weird there. Colour is simply a human representation of a discrete part of the electromagnetic spectrum. It is a completely natural sensory function - and those words tell you what the experience of any part of the spectrum is.
It isn't that I don't understand what you're saying. Steve - it's that I don't understand why you are attempting to turn a natural human function into some esoteric magical phenomenon.
We're simply going around in circles. I don't think there's anything more to say one the subject.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15515
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Aug 13, 2018 6:39 pm

Just to use some different words that may click:

1. So I know you understand that the visual scene is separated Spatially on the Retina //// Absolutely NOT. All the electromagnetic waves coming in are spread to all parts of the retina. The colors we can see, and the colors we cannot see. We have four main receptors that are stimulated as they are (3 colors & rods for "intensity"). Its the brain that pulls it all together, NOT the retina.

2. But I guess you believe there is no such thing as a Red experience /// I tend to agree with this. If "red experience" is the stimulation of the red receptors in the case of conscious perception, and the recall or application of the color red in our dreams. Its very sloppy terminology, but can be made sense of.

3. It IS (apparently) true that different colours of light are mapped onto different parts of the visual cortex (NOT the retina per se) /// I didn't know that....but makes sense....the brain working in ways more discrete than we have subjective recognition of. But the brain does not act as the retina per se. Two entirely different functions.

I haven't seen much follow up on it but evidently scientists can map activity in the brain and determine pretty accurately what a person is looking at. I don't know what special requirements must exist for that mapping and interpretation to take place...………...but science is marching on.

I won't take the time to reread the entire thread but usually BS positions can be revealed by agreeing with them. So...Klinko...everything you say is true. So what? What differential understanding/functionality of the Universe does that provide us?
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?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15515
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Aug 13, 2018 6:41 pm

hmmm....it does bother me because the visual scene is projected by the lens onto the retina. Recall the camera obscura and so forth. so, given the ambiguity of our language, I suppose you can call this "being separated" in some sense, but not in others. Its …………………….. always...………….. the...…………...Brain.
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?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29537
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue Aug 14, 2018 2:50 am

SteveKlinko wrote: Are you really quibbling about the fact that there might be other Colors on different parts of the Retina? Ok then lets specify it this way: There will be a Red experience associated with an area of the Retina that is receiving Red Light.
There is no "red light" hitting the retina.

There is an electromagnetic wave form of different frequencies that are received by the cones in the eye. In humans, a specific frequency is perceived as red. In other species this same frequency is perceived as different colours.

You are 100% wrong in your very first premise.
:lol:

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 831
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Tue Aug 14, 2018 3:48 pm

Poodle wrote:Colour is simply a human representation of a discrete part of the electromagnetic spectrum. It is a completely natural sensory function - and those words tell you what the experience of any part of the spectrum is.
I believe after all this time you are not just messing with me. You really do think those words explain how we See Color. Sorry but that explains nothing for me. So I guess it's Goodbye again.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8820
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by landrew » Tue Aug 14, 2018 3:55 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote: Are you really quibbling about the fact that there might be other Colors on different parts of the Retina? Ok then lets specify it this way: There will be a Red experience associated with an area of the Retina that is receiving Red Light.
There is no "red light" hitting the retina.

There is an electromagnetic wave form of different frequencies that are received by the cones in the eye. In humans, a specific frequency is perceived as red. In other species this same frequency is perceived as different colours.

You are 100% wrong in your very first premise.
:lol:
Not to be argumentative, but light that falls within 620–750 nm is technically defined as "red light." If that's what hits the retina, we see it as red.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 831
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Tue Aug 14, 2018 4:15 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Just to use some different words that may click:

1. So I know you understand that the visual scene is separated Spatially on the Retina //// Absolutely NOT. All the electromagnetic waves coming in are spread to all parts of the retina. The colors we can see, and the colors we cannot see. We have four main receptors that are stimulated as they are (3 colors & rods for "intensity"). Its the brain that pulls it all together, NOT the retina.
Basic operation of a lens.
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:2. But I guess you believe there is no such thing as a Red experience /// I tend to agree with this. If "red experience" is the stimulation of the red receptors in the case of conscious perception, and the recall or application of the color red in our dreams. Its very sloppy terminology, but can be made sense of.
Not exactly sure what you are driving at here. But I think you are saying that there are only Red Receptors being stimulated and no Red experience?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:3. It IS (apparently) true that different colours of light are mapped onto different parts of the visual cortex (NOT the retina per se) /// I didn't know that....but makes sense....the brain working in ways more discrete than we have subjective recognition of. But the brain does not act as the retina per se. Two entirely different functions.
It is well known that the Retina is made out of specialized Neurons which makes the Retina an extension and a part of the Brain.
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I haven't seen much follow up on it but evidently scientists can map activity in the brain and determine pretty accurately what a person is looking at. I don't know what special requirements must exist for that mapping and interpretation to take place...………...but science is marching on.
True. There is a topographical mapping of the Retina onto V1. The resulting map on V1 is a highly distorted version of the image in the Retina.
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I won't take the time to reread the entire thread but usually BS positions can be revealed by agreeing with them. So...Klinko...everything you say is true. So what? What differential understanding/functionality of the Universe does that provide us?
The Inter Mind Model is more a Framework for thinking about Consciousness and not a Theory of Consciousness. Don't reread this thread. But please read my website at http://TheInterMind.com

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

be a spamming troll and receive a thank while you sell your t-shirts

Post by mirror93 » Tue Aug 14, 2018 7:46 pm

Are you serious that someone gave SteveKlinko a thanks?

Image
:paladin:

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

Re: be a spamming troll and receive a thank while you sell your t-shirts

Post by Dimebag » Tue Aug 14, 2018 8:13 pm

mirror93 wrote:Are you serious that someone gave SteveKlinko a thanks?

Image
I believe you were referring to my thanks for this quote:
I'm not saying it can't be a Biochemical process. Science has known that for a hundred years. But Science can not say how that Biochemical process produces an experience of Red. That's all I want to know.
While I may not agree with SteveKlinko on many points, nor his methods and delivery much of the time, every now and then he manages to cut through to the main point, which is why I gave him thanks there, as much of the time Skeptics here attempt to obfuscate around that line of questioning, or gloss over it, and yet it is the key issue in these discussions. So yes, I reinforce people with my thanks for what kind of material I wish to see more of.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15515
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Aug 14, 2018 9:49 pm

1.
Not exactly sure what you are driving at here. But I think you are saying that there are only Red Receptors being stimulated and no Red experience?
I think it is fair to ambiguously refer to a "Red Experience" but that all experience takes place in the Brain. There is stimulus and response all over the place as when wind ripples a wave or causes a leaf to fall. but to experience any of that, you need a brain.

2.
It is well known that the Retina is made out of specialized Neurons which makes the Retina an extension and a part of the Brain.
You have the definition a bit backwards, but close enough. Does this mean anything other than the anatomy?

3.
True. There is a topographical mapping of the Retina onto V1. The resulting map on V1 is a highly distorted version of the image in the Retina.
Yeah....I don't know what you mean by topographical mapping. Its as if you are thinking visually when what is going on would not provide an "image" at all. Its areas of the brain, visual cortex, v1 if you must that are being stimulated and thus with an MRI can be measured and a "picture" of what is being seen can be constructed. There is no picture or map at all taking place in the brain. I hope that is not wildly inaccurate, all from a pop culture article a few years old.

4.
The Inter Mind Model is more a Framework for thinking about Consciousness and not a Theory of Consciousness. Don't reread this thread. But please read my website at http://TheInterMind.com
Framework eh? As sloppy, ambiguous, and flat out wrong as your postings here? Not yet: the tease. Make some sense here...………..and maybe.
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?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29537
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed Aug 15, 2018 12:23 am

landrew wrote: Not to be argumentative, but light that falls within 620–750 nm is technically defined as "red light." If that's what hits the retina, we see it as red.


"In humans". You missed the entire point again. Steve Klinko's religion is anthropocentric. He is pretending his non-physical consciousness religion has universal application, when it is just another version of "God created man in his own image".

This is why Steve Klinko refuses to discuss at what point in evolution on earth did this magical non-physical consciousness suddenly pop up.


Read his religious claims again and you will see how ridiculous they are.
SteveKlinko wrote: "(Human) Consciousness might have existed prior to the Big Bang and might have even been the cause of the Big Bang."
SteveKlinko wrote:"The Evolution of life on this Planet is probably directly driven by (human) Conscious experience."

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15515
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 15, 2018 1:37 am

4.
The Inter Mind Model is more a Framework for thinking about Consciousness and not a Theory of Consciousness. Don't reread this thread. But please read my website at http://TheInterMind.com
Framework eh? As sloppy, ambiguous, and flat out wrong as your postings here? Not yet: the tease. Make some sense here...………..and maybe.[/quote]
After Matts post above, Damn me, but I clicked on the Intermind Link. First words turned me right off as supposedly "conclusions" are reached. What else would those be except some Theory? Then, on same page first expository paragraph makes a distinction between "seeing" and "detecting." Total BS. Mindless activity on display.

No...……..never gonna click on that again.
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 » Wed Aug 15, 2018 7:15 pm

I think what Steve is missing is the fact that the physical brain creates consciousness, maybe he watched too much Chopra........ how on earth can something that came long after the big bang, influence anything on the big bang?
:paladin:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15515
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 15, 2018 7:20 pm

mirror93 wrote:I think what Steve is missing is the fact that the physical brain creates consciousness, maybe he watched too much Chopra........ how on earth can something that came long after the big bang, influence anything on the big bang?
There is a strain of Woo that reverses this cause and effect. NOT a hooman consciousness, but a Universal or Cosmic consciousness. Klink is so vague and ambiguous, I could easily assume he conflates Universal with hooman. both are too silly except to dismiss.
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 » Wed Aug 15, 2018 7:29 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Framework eh? As sloppy, ambiguous, and flat out wrong as your postings here? Not yet: the tease. Make some sense here...………..and maybe.
After Matts post above, Damn me, but I clicked on the Intermind Link. First words turned me right off as supposedly "conclusions" are reached. What else would those be except some Theory? Then, on same page first expository paragraph makes a distinction between "seeing" and "detecting." Total BS. Mindless activity on display.

No...……..never gonna click on that again.
His hoax website is an insult to any good theory on consciousness
:paladin:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15515
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 15, 2018 9:43 pm

Mirror: worse. An insult to bad theories on consciousness. In fact, that's a high water mark he doesn't even claim/try to reach. He says "no theories" just a framework. Not appreciating those concepts either.

A total waste of time. Sad, he seems like a cheery person otherwise.
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: 10154
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 16, 2018 8:38 am

Things which lead to confusion and misinterpretation ...
Light ... it's simply a small part of the electromagnetic spectrum (ES for brevity in future). Our sensory apparatus gives us access to a small part of it.
Red light ... does not exist. It is a human attempt to describe a small part of the ES, even though that small part merges in a non-discrete manner into other bits loosely described as infra-red and, eventually, ultraviolet, neither of which our eyes can detect.
Our brains have developed (if you go back far enough, from a totally non-visual beginning) sensitivity to that small part of the ES we now call visible light. That is (obviously, in my opinion) where the greatest survival advantage lies - once it's joined to other spectra to which we have developed sensitivity for the same survival reasons - sound, touch, taste and smell. Monochromatic vision, however, although quite useful in a hindsight kind of manner, does NOT convey enough information to tell us the difference between hornets and houseflies. But that's OK - the world does not have mere monochromaticism - the visible spectrum is wide enough to allow differentiation within that spectrum. And if it provides that information, there will undoubtedly be genetic variations allowing proto-humans to take advantage of it. And so there were. And once you have that survival advantage safely tucked under your collective belt, you're going to notice the differentiation and apply labels - like red, blue, etc.
Seems simple so far - but how do you know that the red I see is what you see? Well, you don't and you never will - all you can be certain of is that all fully-equipped humans agree with the relationships within any spectrum to which they are sensitive. How any individual deals with differentiation within spectra is neither here nor there and is, in any case, untestable - all we can agree upon is those relationships determined by physical reality over which humans have absolutely no control.
So what's red? It's what my brain tells me I perceive when light within a certain frequency range enters my eyes. It's also what SteveK's brain tells him he perceives when light within a certain frequency range enters his eyes. We can talk about this and compare notes but, apart from its relationship to other light phenomemena, we can determine nothing about our perceptions - we cannot prove commonality of experience other than accepting that certain light frequencies are accepted by both of us as a 'red' experience. We cannot know that the manner in which I perceive red is identical to the manner in which SteveK perceives red. Asking the question really is looking for the sound of one hand clapping - the question is, in itself, meaningless - indeed, vacuous.
So there you go - our environment is what it is regardless of our perceptions and we cannot prove in any instance that our mutual perception of it is in any way identical. Relationships are identical - orange is always next to red and yellow lies beyond that - but measurement of relationships tells us sweet FA about identity of perception. You're up a gum tree without a paddle, Steve.
And that, apart from the next time, is my final word on the subject. Aside from definition by frequency, which is established, I'm stating that any commonality of experience is impossible to demonstrate and even more impossible (?) to prove. Asking for a definition of the human experience of red is a monumental waste of good brain time.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15515
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 16, 2018 6:32 pm

The quibble: color blind people. We normal can "prove" they do not see red at all, but rather a shade of gray. The shade of gray color blind people see is totally functional for many purposes....but not for flying airplanes that have red and green lights on opposite wings so you can tell if that spot is coming or going......and yes, using the same color differentiation tests, we can tell what they are seeing is a shade of gray.

some people are color blind seeing certain colors as shades of gray and are never aware of it until taking a color perception test. probably can find them on the internet and do a self test if you care to. The "Red Experience" is different for all of us....its what the individual "sees." I have not doubt being color normal that what I see is indistinguishable from what other color normal people see.....or close enough for gubment work.

I do wonder what other kind of perceptual differences we have that we don't even know we are "different" in? Famous ones include that "taste" test of whatever that some people think is sweet while others entirely bitter? Touch: I've heard of people that experience pain or even can color perceive when touching objects. Hearing is across a range of tones entirely testable as well. Whats left?....Smell: I have a big nose and my whole life almost no sense of smell. Bad one day when the cockpit had an electrical fire and smoke was wafting over my face but I was half asleep and smelled nothing. Co pilot had to ask me if my side of the cockpit was on fire...……………….ha, ha: so glad the Air Force did not test for smell. I was "deficient."
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 » Thu Aug 16, 2018 8:53 pm

SteveKlinko wrote: =
let me ask a couple of questions: do you believe you are directly ̷ ̷̶̷e̷̶̷x̷̶̷p̷̶̷e̷̶̷r̷̶̷i̷̶̷e̷̶̷n̷̶̷c̷̶̷i̷̶̷n̷̶̷g̷̶̷ ̷̶̷ seeing some aspect of the red light itself?
I have problems with your need to add the word "experience" to each phrase
:paladin: