ChatterBank1 min ago
What is phenomenal red a property of?
25 Answers
Things that reflect 650 NM light, such as a strawberry, enable us to have knowledge of them. Is such a red property a property of the strawberry or a property of our knowledge of such?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by brent.allsop. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
Hi Eddie51,
Are you talking about the words I've mentioned in this answer thread? If you are talking about camp statements in the consciousness survey, like the "Consciousness as the 5th dimension of the brain?" camp Jake ridiculed, I take no credit for that. Like Jake I see no value in such ways of thinking about consciousness. But, Unlike Jake, I do value knowing what they currently think and why, concisely and quantitatively, in their own words.
If you are talking about something like the "Representational Qualia Theory" camp statement supported by most experts ( see: http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88/6 ), then you'll just have to work a bit, following the references for more info and so on, to better learn what these experts think is the best way to describe this stuff in these scientific terms. Obviously this advanced field of theoretical science isn't trivial for the lay person.
I've been personally interviewing, working closely with and survey leading experts like Steven Lehar, John Smythies, Stuart Hameroff, David Chalmers, and many others in this field for several years now, and these are the best words these experts have agreed on to state the working hypothesis they all currently accept as being what they all believe science will soon demonstrably prove.
One thing is for sure, you'll find getting a grasp on the more expert supported camps infinitely easier than trying to read some portion of the 20K publications in some of the popular bibliographies for this field or trying to read all that has been said on this topic in the entire internet.
Brent Allsop
Are you talking about the words I've mentioned in this answer thread? If you are talking about camp statements in the consciousness survey, like the "Consciousness as the 5th dimension of the brain?" camp Jake ridiculed, I take no credit for that. Like Jake I see no value in such ways of thinking about consciousness. But, Unlike Jake, I do value knowing what they currently think and why, concisely and quantitatively, in their own words.
If you are talking about something like the "Representational Qualia Theory" camp statement supported by most experts ( see: http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88/6 ), then you'll just have to work a bit, following the references for more info and so on, to better learn what these experts think is the best way to describe this stuff in these scientific terms. Obviously this advanced field of theoretical science isn't trivial for the lay person.
I've been personally interviewing, working closely with and survey leading experts like Steven Lehar, John Smythies, Stuart Hameroff, David Chalmers, and many others in this field for several years now, and these are the best words these experts have agreed on to state the working hypothesis they all currently accept as being what they all believe science will soon demonstrably prove.
One thing is for sure, you'll find getting a grasp on the more expert supported camps infinitely easier than trying to read some portion of the 20K publications in some of the popular bibliographies for this field or trying to read all that has been said on this topic in the entire internet.
Brent Allsop
Several people seem to be struggling with what I'm trying to say. To me, these things aren't trivial, but then they aren't that hard either. The theory initially supported by more experts simply predicts the following.
There are two different components to the common usage of the term 'red'. One component is the cause and effect property of a surface that reflects something like 650 nm light. In addition to this there is the quality of what it is like to experience red. Any perception process involves initial causes of perception, such as a strawberry reflecting 650nm light, and it also includes our knowledge of such, which is obviously the final result of the perception process in our brain. The theory simply predicts that the initial cause of the perception process is only about the causal property of reflecting 650nm light, while our knowledge of such, in our brain, is what has the phenomenal red quality which we experience.
The theory predicts that things like the quality of red, the taste of salt, and so on, are blind to simple cause and effect observation. That is what it means to be ineffable. The theory also predicts that we are about to discover more than abstracting causal ways of communicating such qualities or ways to 'eff' the ineffable. In other words science is about to enable some way for us to enable someone to experience someone else's red, first hand, which could result in them saying something like: "oh THAT is what your red is like. That is like my knowledge of green.".
Might I ask how many people can understand such a representational theory of consciousness? How many people are still baffled by this?
There are two different components to the common usage of the term 'red'. One component is the cause and effect property of a surface that reflects something like 650 nm light. In addition to this there is the quality of what it is like to experience red. Any perception process involves initial causes of perception, such as a strawberry reflecting 650nm light, and it also includes our knowledge of such, which is obviously the final result of the perception process in our brain. The theory simply predicts that the initial cause of the perception process is only about the causal property of reflecting 650nm light, while our knowledge of such, in our brain, is what has the phenomenal red quality which we experience.
The theory predicts that things like the quality of red, the taste of salt, and so on, are blind to simple cause and effect observation. That is what it means to be ineffable. The theory also predicts that we are about to discover more than abstracting causal ways of communicating such qualities or ways to 'eff' the ineffable. In other words science is about to enable some way for us to enable someone to experience someone else's red, first hand, which could result in them saying something like: "oh THAT is what your red is like. That is like my knowledge of green.".
Might I ask how many people can understand such a representational theory of consciousness? How many people are still baffled by this?
Brent, I concur with what JTP has been saying.
Furthermore you appear to have an inflated opinion of yourself, you have no humility and appear to be spamming what looks like the beginnings of a cult afaic.
I wouldnt be at all surprised if you are a proselytizing paranoid schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.
Furthermore you appear to have an inflated opinion of yourself, you have no humility and appear to be spamming what looks like the beginnings of a cult afaic.
I wouldnt be at all surprised if you are a proselytizing paranoid schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.