TimB: I don’t get why “redness” is supposedly some mysterious, inexplicable thing. We perceive colors due to different light waves (maybe with a little xtra brain processing to present an interpretation of the particular light waves that go with the particular color of a thing as Write4U suggested).
If you still think that Redness has anything to do with Wavelengths of Light then I can see why you would have trouble understanding the Hard Problem. The Redness Experience will obviously have nothing to do with Wavelengths of Light when you are having a Vivid Color dream with Redness in the Dream Scene. Think about the Redness. It has nothing to do with the 670nm Electromagnetic phenomenon. The Electromagnetic phenomenon is a travelling Oscillation of Electric and Magnetic fields at a particular Wavelength. The Redness Experience has no Oscillatory Properties. It is just a continuous Experience of Redness in an area of your total Conscious Light Scene that is embedded in the front of your face. The Redness is a Surrogate for the Electromagnetic Phenomenon. You never have seen any Electromagnetic Light but only the Surrogate that is generated by your Brain/Mind.
So do you think you know what this Surrogate Redness Experience actually is? If you did know what it was you would have solved the Hard Problem of Consciousness. What is the Redness Experience itself? Think more Deeply about the Experience itself. You cannot ignore it by saying it is a Behavior or it is an Illusion. It is a Phenomenon of the Conscious Mind that will require new ways of thinking to completely understand it.
You never have seen any Electromagnetic Light but only the Surrogate that is generated by your Brain/Mind.
A guy on my track team explained this to me when we were on the bus to a meet. He was 15. This is just a redefinition of the word "seen". Normally, "seeing" means whatever happens when those waves contact an eye that is connected to a brain. Depending on what animal is connected to the brain, it might appear different, but the waves remain constant.
Think more Deeply about the Experience itself. You cannot ignore it by saying it is a Behavior or it is an Illusion.
This suggests that if I did this deeper thinking I'd arrive at a different conclusion. But so far, you've only stated that the conclusions expressed here and elsewhere are wrong. Are you leading up to something, or are you just not satisfied with what the rest of the world says about experiencing color?
You never have seen any Electromagnetic Light but only the Surrogate that is generated by your Brain/Mind.
Lausten: A guy on my track team explained this to me when we were on the bus to a meet. He was 15. This is just a redefinition of the word “seen”. Normally, “seeing” means whatever happens when those waves contact an eye that is connected to a brain. Depending on what animal is connected to the brain, it might appear different, but the waves remain constant.
Do you understand that you have never seen Electromagnetic Light but just your own internal Surrogate in place of the Electromagnetic Light?
Think more Deeply about the Experience itself. You cannot ignore it by saying it is a Behavior or it is an Illusion.
Lausten: This suggests that if I did this deeper thinking I’d arrive at a different conclusion. But so far, you’ve only stated that the conclusions expressed here and elsewhere are wrong. Are you leading up to something, or are you just not satisfied with what the rest of the world says about experiencing color?
I’ve talked about the Internal Surrogate for the Electromagnetic Light. That is nothing new. It is the central concept that the Hard Problem is based on. Since I think that you and TimB reject the Hard Problem of Consciousness, I am just trying to figure out why you reject it. It is usually because of a misunderstanding of what the Hard Problem actually is. The Hard Problem of Consciousness is to Explain what that Internal Surrogate is. What is that Experience of Redness?
Do you understand that you have never seen Electromagnetic Light but just your own internal Surrogate in place of the Electromagnetic Light?
Think more Deeply about the Experience itself. You cannot ignore it by saying it is a Behavior or it is an Illusion.
So, you are acting like a bot now. Just repeating yourself. You are replacing “internal Surrogate” for “seen”. Then telling me to think and putting Tim’s words into my mouth. Not that Tim’s words are wrong, I just have my own, thank you.
Lausten: So, you are acting like a bot now. Just repeating yourself. You are replacing “internal Surrogate” for “seen”. Then telling me to think and putting Tim’s words into my mouth. Not that Tim’s words are wrong, I just have my own, thank you.
“Seen” will imply to Direct Realists that they are Seeing the actual thing as it is. “Internal Surrogate” eliminates that interpretation. I assumed you would be in the Illusion camp not the Behavior camp, but I suppose I was talking to both of you.
I think we can dispense with “seeing with the eyes” since that’s obviously not what mean.
Forming a mental picture, well that seems to be a problem for you. That’s not the “actual” thing.
I don’t think you mean meeting a bet, as in poker.
I can’t figure out what definition of “see” you are using. Maybe the problem is “actual”. If my eyes/mind are reacting to a wave is the wave the actual thing? Are you talking about perceiving all the physics involved in seeing color? What are you talking about?
Lausten: I think we can dispense with “seeing with the eyes” since that’s obviously not what mean.
Forming a mental picture, well that seems to be a problem for you. That’s not the “actual” thing.
I don’t think you mean meeting a bet, as in poker.
I can’t figure out what definition of “see” you are using. Maybe the problem is “actual”. If my eyes/mind are reacting to a wave is the wave the actual thing? Are you talking about perceiving all the physics involved in seeing color? What are you talking about?
I gave it my best shot. You are either just Messing with me or you are trapped in a Semantic Feedback Loop. When you understand the Hard Problem of Consciousness you will understand what I am talking about. We should not even be having an argument like this. Inherent in the Hard Problem is the answer to your question about Seeing. Maybe you are waiting for me to say the word Qualia. I thought Qualia was implied when we talk about the Hard Problem. The Hard Problem has been standard Philosophy for 20 years. Do you understand the Hard Problem or not? Do you understand the Hard Problem but yet reject it?
There you go introducing more useless new terms that serve nothing but to obfuscate understanding. “Internal Surrogate” Is that another homunculus?
Look. We are on the Boardwalk. We see a child with a red balloon. Our eyes along with other parts of our neurological system, are essential to this particular perception. Later we fall asleep and dream about the child and the red balloon. Our eyes are closed so there are no lightwaves to perceive the redness of the balloon. Oh but wait! There are no stimuli present at all - no boardwalk, no child, no balloon. Yet we still see it in the dream. We see all of the stuff, not just the red stuff. EVEN THO OUR EYES ARE CLOSED.
It is SOOO mysterious, ooooo oooooooooh. Then I take out a video I made of the walk. There is the boardwalk, the child, the balloon. How can such a terribly mysterious thing be? The boardwalk, the child, the balloon are not present, but the recording is still present to be seen. (What I’m getting at, is that remembering is also a mental behavior.)
Now if the video was in black and white, I wouldn’t see the redness of the balloon.
If I were Jake, the colorblind guy, before he ever donned the special glasses that let him see colors, then I could not dream of a red balloon, because I had never seen “red” before. My brain would not have been capable of having a dream with colors in it that I had never seen. But AFTER I had directly seen red, my brain could have a dream behavior in which I saw red things.
I must have missed that post. All the ones I read are about how whatever someone says is not thinking "deep" enough. You also said it's a mystery, so then, what, do you know what it is? As I said when you started, there is more than one opinion on what the Hard Problem is, so you don't get to treat it like your opinion is the correct one, or that you can just say "Hard Problem" and everyone should know what you mean. I know I can't describe consciousness, because that's hard, it's a problem.
I believe that I can and have explained consciousness.
No one has to believe my hypothesis/paradigm. I don’t mind casting pearls (you can’t take them with you). I believe that if enough people were willing to do research based on my hypothesis/paradigm, it would eventually be borne out to be correct. (Also further advances in neurological technology, particularly in detecting Neural activities, will be helpful.)
I know that Steven is on the wrong track. He keeps trying to add another little internal man to explain his “mysteries”. But the little man cannot. Does that little man need another little man inside him to explain things? That just makes it even more incomprehensible. I wonder whether Steven really wants consciousness to be explained. He seems to want it to remain a “mystery”. And his paradigm choices would likely insure that.
And Steven, I seem to be picking on you. But your rejection of my paradigm is still not out of line with the zeitgeist. I think that will change eventually, because truth tends to eventually rise.
Lausten: I must have missed that post. All the ones I read are about how whatever someone says is not thinking “deep” enough. You also said it’s a mystery, so then, what, do you know what it is? As I said when you started, there is more than one opinion on what the Hard Problem is, so you don’t get to treat it like your opinion is the correct one, or that you can just say “Hard Problem” and everyone should know what you mean. I know I can’t describe consciousness, because that’s hard, it’s a problem.
When I say Hard Problem in a Philosophical discussion everyone Should Know what I mean. Are you not familiar with David Chalmers Easy Problem and Hard Problem? This has been a basic Philosophy of Consciousness concept for 20 years. When anyone says Hard Problem they are referring to the David Chalmers concept of the Hard Problem. I don’t have to Explain the Hard Problem to you. You need to do some homework and Google it, or go to a Library. Then maybe we can have a useful discussion.
TimB: I believe that I can and have explained consciousness.
No one has to believe my hypothesis/paradigm. I don’t mind casting pearls (you can’t take them with you). I believe that if enough people were willing to do research based on my hypothesis/paradigm, it would eventually be borne out to be correct. (Also further advances in neurological technology, particularly in detecting Neural activities, will be helpful.)
I know that Steven is on the wrong track. He keeps trying to add another little internal man to explain his “mysteries”. But the little man cannot. Does that little man need another little man inside him to explain things? That just makes it even more incomprehensible. I wonder whether Steven really wants consciousness to be explained. He seems to want it to remain a “mystery”. And his paradigm choices would likely insure that.
And Steven, I seem to be picking on you. But your rejection of my paradigm is still not out of line with the zeitgeist. I think that will change eventually, because truth tends to eventually rise.
Why do I have to grapple with your theory on my thread about the Connection Perspective? Go talk about your theory on your own thread. However, Good luck with your theory.
I do appreciate the opportunity to have presented my ideas on your thread, and with your participation and questions. You already have the jist of my critique on your model.
BTW can your model predict that a person who has had the type of color blindness that prevents bright color detection and discrimination, all of their life, would never report dreaming in color until sometime AFTER their color blindness had been corrected?
When I say Hard Problem in a Philosophical discussion everyone Should Know what I mean.
I already said that I don’t agree with this, a couple posts ago. “As I said when you started, there is more than one opinion on what the Hard Problem is, so you don’t get to treat it like your opinion is the correct one, or that you can just say “Hard Problem” and everyone should know what you mean.”
Really, this is just a few people, with interests in a range of science topics. We seem to be growing and respectful conversation will help with that. I don’t know why you expect that we should have some specific knowledge. We didn’t take a test to get here. You already floated these ideas on a forum that is dedicated to philosophy, and you got kicked of it. That should tell you something. I don’t get what your idea of a “useful discussion” is, since it seems it requires I use google to acquire your perspective, then agree with you.
BTW can your model predict that a person who has had the type of color blindness that prevents bright color detection and discrimination, all of their life, would never report dreaming in color until sometime AFTER their color blindness had been corrected?
Dreaming is highly dependent on Memory and the subject never had a Memory of seeing Bright Color. When the Subject finally did have a Color Experience of that kind the Subject would then have a Memory of that and so would possibly have a Color Dream that they never had before. If you had never seen an Elephant you would never Dream about an Elephant. After you see an Elephant you would be able to Dream about Elephants. So this situation is really irrelevant with both our Models.
Lausten: I already said that I don’t agree with this, a couple posts ago. “As I said when you started, there is more than one opinion on what the Hard Problem is, so you don’t get to treat it like your opinion is the correct one, or that you can just say “Hard Problem” and everyone should know what you mean.”
Really, this is just a few people, with interests in a range of science topics. We seem to be growing and respectful conversation will help with that. I don’t know why you expect that we should have some specific knowledge. We didn’t take a test to get here. You already floated these ideas on a forum that is dedicated to philosophy, and you got kicked of it. That should tell you something. I don’t get what your idea of a “useful discussion” is, since it seems it requires I use google to acquire your perspective, then agree with you.
I expect you to know the basic issues of the topic you are debating about. If you are not going to read some of Chalmers work about the easy Problem and the Hard Problem then you are debating in the Dark. You don’t need to get a degree in Philosophy but you do need to have a certain base knowledge of the issues. If you already know about the Chalmers Hard Problem and just reject it then say so and Explain why. If you are just making believe you have never heard of the Chalmers Hard Problem then you are just playing games.
I expect you to know the basic issues of the topic you are debating about.
Oh, we’re debating now, I didn’t realize that. I thought you were pontificating. I’ve done nothing but correct your characterizations of me (telling you I’m not rejecting the Hard Problem 3 times), and asked for definitions of terms, like “seeing” and “thinking deeply”. It took 4 pages before you referenced Chalmers, and honestly, I’m not sure you’re doing him justice, but I’m not going to spend a lot of time critiquing that. I’ll just note once again that there are other opinions, like, Churchland, Lewis, and Minsky.
This is a discussion forum, not a debate, not a scholarly review, not a panel of experts. If you wanted a debate, and you stated that at the beginning, I likely would have not responded at all.
“Is the Hard Problem an idea that demonstrates the need for a major revolution in science if consciousness is ever to be explained, or an idea that demonstrates the frailties of human imagination? That question is not settled at this time, so scientists should consider adopting the cautious course that postpones all accommodation with it. That’s how most neuroscientists handle ESP and psychokinesis—assuming, defeasibly, that they are figments of imagination.”
So basically he said, the concept of the “Hard Problem” has the same scientific worthiness as ESP and psychokinesis.