COLOUR

[DBT]

The Mantra again. Mind, according to all evidence, is the function and work of a brain. Mind has no independence from the brain that is forming and generating conscious activity, the experience of sight, sound, smell, thoughts, feelings, etc, etc....mind is whatever a brain is doing.

That is not an answer to anything.

It is just hand waving and not responding.

You are only good at avoiding ideas and have no ability to address any.

Nope, hand waving is asserting something over and over and over - that mind is able act independently from the brain - without having any evidence to support the notion.....the assertion being based purely on how you FEEL it works.

 

[untermensche]

The Mantra again. Mind, according to all evidence, is the function and work of a brain. Mind has no independence from the brain that is forming and generating conscious activity, the experience of sight, sound, smell, thoughts, feelings, etc, etc....mind is whatever a brain is doing.

That is not an answer to anything.

It is just hand waving and not responding.

You are only good at avoiding ideas and have no ability to address any.

Nope, hand waving is asserting something over and over and over - that mind is able act independently from the brain - without having any evidence to support the notion.....the assertion being based purely on how you FEEL it works.

You have no evidence the mind can not act independently of a brain.

You have no clue why the mind does anything.

You have zero objective evidence of the mind. Objectively you don't even know where it is or what it is.

And no reason to think the brain understands what the mind understands.

 

[fromderinside]

Untermensche your analysis is flawed.

Light frequency clearly triggers a molecule in the receptor to institute a processes, one even you admit is a cascade, to trigger processes that initiate action potentials from the receptor to surrounding neural cells via several types of chemical activation, any of which may contain information about frequency, orientation, cell location, suitable to initiate further impulses upstream in the visual pathways in the brain.

Nope. The energy does not know what it is triggering. It is just blindly converting some molecule it has run into.

Knowing isn't involved, isn't required for the process to exist. Always the dead chicken being dragged across the discussion removing any sense of meaning to what you are trying to defend. Provide evidence, not dead chickens.

 

[untermensche]

Untermensche your analysis is flawed.

Light frequency clearly triggers a molecule in the receptor to institute a processes, one even you admit is a cascade, to trigger processes that initiate action potentials from the receptor to surrounding neural cells via several types of chemical activation, any of which may contain information about frequency, orientation, cell location, suitable to initiate further impulses upstream in the visual pathways in the brain.

Nope. The energy does not know what it is triggering. It is just blindly converting some molecule it has run into.

Knowing isn't involved, isn't required for the process to exist. Always the dead chicken being dragged across the discussion removing any sense of meaning to what you are trying to defend. Provide evidence, not dead chickens.

The word is 'mechanism'.

Cellular mechanisms.

That is how cells work.

We know what the energy is doing.

It is causing a molecule to shift which sets off a known cellular mechanism.

There is nothing more to learn about the initiation step.

All that is left to learn is downstream processing of initial information.

And nowhere in the initiation of the visual reflex does energy pass to the nervous system information about itself.

It is a hand that hits a switch that turns on the lights.

You have no mechanism.

You have woo and hand waving.

 

[fromderinside]

You treat visual energy in the eye as a unitary thing. It is not. My mechanism is evolution of multiple domains of spectral sensitivity in a system designed to resolve and analyze various visual energy processed uniquely. Evolution accomplishes this using several different light sensitive materials which then drive reports of their detections by instancing action potentials as digital information of the several categories of color to be resolved, eg. spatially, spectrally, in magnitude, by neural processes designed to do just that. These are indeed a very important and complicated set of light processing routines and capabilities.

 

[DBT]

Nope, hand waving is asserting something over and over and over - that mind is able act independently from the brain - without having any evidence to support the notion.....the assertion being based purely on how you FEEL it works.

You have no evidence the mind can not act independently of a brain.

You have no clue why the mind does anything.

You have zero objective evidence of the mind. Objectively you don't even know where it is or what it is.

And no reason to think the brain understands what the mind understands.

Mantra.

 

[untermensche]

Nope, hand waving is asserting something over and over and over - that mind is able act independently from the brain - without having any evidence to support the notion.....the assertion being based purely on how you FEEL it works.

You have no evidence the mind can not act independently of a brain.

You have no clue why the mind does anything.

You have zero objective evidence of the mind. Objectively you don't even know where it is or what it is.

And no reason to think the brain understands what the mind understands.

Mantra.

Worthless nothingness but faith in stories told by people with prejudices.

I make the same points because I understand and truth does not change.

You evade and fool yourself.

You addressed nothing and that is clear to see.

You have no way to objectively talk about the mind.

You just say the brain creates the mind (your only uninteresting point that tells us nothing) which does not tell us anything about the nature or abilities of the mind.

But My rational ideas are just droning and mantra to the religious with their faith and absolute lack of any objective understanding of the mind.

 

[untermensche]

You treat visual energy in the eye as a unitary thing...

I treat the entire visual spectrum as one thing.

It only does one thing.

It causes a molecule to shift. The same molecule. Then it is gone. There is no mechanism for it to transfer information about itself to a cell.

That the cell can differentiate the stimuli into smaller parts and react differently to different parts of the visible spectrum as well as the entire spectrum as a distinct stimuli is based on evolved cellular mechanisms like location and surrounding proteins.

These are not mechanisms that gather information about the energy. They are mechanisms that make it easier or harder for some parts of the visual spectrum to get at and to cause the retinal molecule to shift.

No magic information gathering anywhere.

Your ideas are miracles.

 

[fromderinside]

-nm II

 

[DBT]

Mantra.

Worthless nothingness but faith in stories told by people with prejudices.

I make the same points because I understand and truth does not change.

You evade and fool yourself.

You addressed nothing and that is clear to see.

You have no way to objectively talk about the mind.

You just say the brain creates the mind (your only uninteresting point that tells us nothing) which does not tell us anything about the nature or abilities of the mind.

But My rational ideas are just droning and mantra to the religious with their faith and absolute lack of any objective understanding of the mind.

Mind acting independently from the brain is not a rational claim. It has been pointed out that the attributes and features of mind, vision, hearing, smell, thoughts, feelings, etc, are related to the architecture of a brain and all that entails.

 

[untermensche]

Mind acting independently from the brain is not a rational claim.

You've never once shown it to be irrational.

A mind acting on ideas is far more rational than a mind being constantly tricked into thinking it is acting on ideas. A mind acting is a million times more rational than your claims that a mind exists and does absolutely nothing.

You have no objective knowledge of the mind.

Neuroscience as a whole has no objective knowledge of the mind. That is why they ask subjects to report what they are experiencing.

Science looks at the brain and has no idea how experience occurs or where it occurs. Science has crude correlations based entirely on subjective reports.

You should stop lying and claiming science has any objective understanding of the mind.

Science says stupid stuff like "Dopamine" is related to pleasure. Areas of the brain that are stimulated by Dopamine are related to pleasure. Dopamine is just a molecule able to bind to some receptors all over the body. It has no magic property of "pleasure inducing". The brain creates the experience of pleasure when certain cells are activated. Pleasure is an experience of the mind. Not a property of molecules.

Science has not learned anything about the "subject" that the subject has not told them.

 

[untermensche]

Color is a function of the human visual system, and is not an intrinsic property. Objects don't have a color, they give off light that appears to be a color. Spectral power distributions exist in the physical world, but color exists only in the mind of the beholder. Our perception of color is not an objective measure of anything about the light that enters our eyes, but it correlates pretty well with objective reality.

https://physics.info/color/

'Correlate with realty' means there is something in what is called the "real world" that correlates to the colors produced by the brain.

But as the preceding sentences make clear color is only something experienced in the mind.

 

[DBT]

Mind acting independently from the brain is not a rational claim.

You've never once shown it to be irrational.

A mind acting on ideas is far more rational than a mind being constantly tricked into thinking it is acting on ideas. A mind acting is a million times more rational than your claims that a mind exists and does absolutely nothing.

You have no objective knowledge of the mind.

Neuroscience as a whole has no objective knowledge of the mind. That is why they ask subjects to report what they are experiencing.

Science looks at the brain and has no idea how experience occurs or where it occurs. Science has crude correlations based entirely on subjective reports.

You should stop lying and claiming science has any objective understanding of the mind.

Science says stupid stuff like "Dopamine" is related to pleasure. Areas of the brain that are stimulated by Dopamine are related to pleasure. Dopamine is just a molecule able to bind to some receptors all over the body. It has no magic property of "pleasure inducing". The brain creates the experience of pleasure when certain cells are activated. Pleasure is an experience of the mind. Not a property of molecules.

Science has not learned anything about the "subject" that the subject has not told them.

Everything that I have provided on brain architecture, function and output shows that autonomy of mind is an irrational idea. You dismiss whatever is provided, case studies, experiments, the evidence and analysis.

That is irrational.

 

[untermensche]

Mind acting independently from the brain is not a rational claim.

You've never once shown it to be irrational.

A mind acting on ideas is far more rational than a mind being constantly tricked into thinking it is acting on ideas. A mind acting is a million times more rational than your claims that a mind exists and does absolutely nothing.

You have no objective knowledge of the mind.

Neuroscience as a whole has no objective knowledge of the mind. That is why they ask subjects to report what they are experiencing.

Science looks at the brain and has no idea how experience occurs or where it occurs. Science has crude correlations based entirely on subjective reports.

You should stop lying and claiming science has any objective understanding of the mind.

Science says stupid stuff like "Dopamine" is related to pleasure. Areas of the brain that are stimulated by Dopamine are related to pleasure. Dopamine is just a molecule able to bind to some receptors all over the body. It has no magic property of "pleasure inducing". The brain creates the experience of pleasure when certain cells are activated. Pleasure is an experience of the mind. Not a property of molecules.

Science has not learned anything about the "subject" that the subject has not told them.

Everything that I have provided on brain architecture, function and output shows that autonomy of mind is an irrational idea. You dismiss whatever is provided, case studies, experiments, the evidence and analysis.

That is irrational.

Nope.

Nothing you have ever said or pointed to shows the autonomous mind is not possible.

You have merely claimed the mind is useless and does nothing with no evidence to support your wild claim.

I have experience.

You have nothing.

If you had something you wouldn't merely whine "but science".

You have nothing and can't even say in your own words what you think you have.

Wood can give rise to fire. But wood is not fire. When the fire burns you it is not the wood that burnt you.

The brain gives rise to a mind and the mind is not a brain.

Real science is trying to explain the phenomena of the mind.

Phony science pretends the mind does nothing as scientists use their minds, their imaginations, to make the claim, not any evidence.

 

[fromderinside]

Color is a function of the human visual system, and is not an intrinsic property. Objects don't have a color, they give off light that appears to be a color. Spectral power distributions exist in the physical world, but color exists only in the mind of the beholder. Our perception of color is not an objective measure of anything about the light that enters our eyes, but it correlates pretty well with objective reality.

https://physics.info/color/

'Correlate with realty' means there is something in what is called the "real world" that correlates to the colors produced by the brain.

But as the preceding sentences make clear color is only something experienced in the mind.

No it doesn't. It uses unproven constructs to defend a position not held by the scientific community, the community of materials science. One cannot refer to a thing as evidence if the thing itself needs evidence not available. Simply redefining correlation outside the context in which it was employed does not rescue your failed position.

Here is an example of using evidence to produce a valid supported argument. https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...nd-Free-Choice&p=931796&viewfull=1#post931796

 

[DBT]

Everything that I have provided on brain architecture, function and output shows that autonomy of mind is an irrational idea. You dismiss whatever is provided, case studies, experiments, the evidence and analysis.

That is irrational.

Nope.

Nothing you have ever said or pointed to shows the autonomous mind is not possible.

You have merely claimed the mind is useless and does nothing with no evidence to support your wild claim.

I have experience.

You have nothing.

If you had something you wouldn't merely whine "but science".

You have nothing and can't even say in your own words what you think you have.

Wood can give rise to fire. But wood is not fire. When the fire burns you it is not the wood that burnt you.

The brain gives rise to a mind and the mind is not a brain.

Real science is trying to explain the phenomena of the mind.

Phony science pretends the mind does nothing as scientists use their minds, their imaginations, to make the claim, not any evidence.

There is no evidence to support autonomy of mind. Your fallacy is that of a fundamentalist: ''oh, you can't prove there is no god'' - ''where is the evidence that god doesn't exist''

That is your line of argument. It is a fallacy.

It is a fallacy because an absence of evidence (where evidence should be found) to support a proposition is evidence that goes against the proposition.

Without evidence, there is no reason to believe.

You are left with an unfounded belief, which is an article of faith.

You have faith, not science.

 

[untermensche]

Everything that I have provided on brain architecture, function and output shows that autonomy of mind is an irrational idea. You dismiss whatever is provided, case studies, experiments, the evidence and analysis.

That is irrational.

Nope.

Nothing you have ever said or pointed to shows the autonomous mind is not possible.

You have merely claimed the mind is useless and does nothing with no evidence to support your wild claim.

I have experience.

You have nothing.

If you had something you wouldn't merely whine "but science".

You have nothing and can't even say in your own words what you think you have.

Wood can give rise to fire. But wood is not fire. When the fire burns you it is not the wood that burnt you.

The brain gives rise to a mind and the mind is not a brain.

Real science is trying to explain the phenomena of the mind.

Phony science pretends the mind does nothing as scientists use their minds, their imaginations, to make the claim, not any evidence.

There is no evidence to support autonomy of mind. Your fallacy is that of a fundamentalist: ''oh, you can't prove there is no god'' - ''where is the evidence that god doesn't exist''

That is your line of argument. It is a fallacy.

It is a fallacy because an absence of evidence (where evidence should be found) to support a proposition is evidence that goes against the proposition.

Without evidence, there is no reason to believe.

You are left with an unfounded belief, which is an article of faith.

You have faith, not science.

There is tons of evidence.

Are you claiming you did not freely choose your opinions with your mind?

How did you get them then?

What are your opinions if not something freely chosen by your mind? What chose them and how do you know that?

And if something is forcing to have it's opinions where does it get those opinions?

If you answer these questions you might learn something.

If you ignore every one you are merely dishonest. You are freely choosing to be dishonest.

You have lied to yourself about this.

But I am not as gullible and irrational.

 

[DBT]

There is no evidence to support autonomy of mind. Your fallacy is that of a fundamentalist: ''oh, you can't prove there is no god'' - ''where is the evidence that god doesn't exist''

That is your line of argument. It is a fallacy.

It is a fallacy because an absence of evidence (where evidence should be found) to support a proposition is evidence that goes against the proposition.

Without evidence, there is no reason to believe.

You are left with an unfounded belief, which is an article of faith.

You have faith, not science.

There is tons of evidence.

Are you claiming you did not freely choose your opinions with your mind?

How did you get them then?

What are your opinions if not something freely chosen by your mind? What chose them and how do you know that?

And if something is forcing to have it's opinions where does it get those opinions?

If you answer these questions you might learn something.

If you ignore every one you are merely dishonest. You are freely choosing to be dishonest.

You have lied to yourself about this.

But I am not as gullible and irrational.

What you say is not evidence.

You are asserting what you believe.

What you believe is not supported by neuroscience.

If you have actual evidence for autonomy of mind, present that evidence.

Explain how the mind achieves autonomy from the very electro-chemical process that is generating it.

 

[untermensche]

I will leave you twisting in the wind.

Not even able to say you chose your opinions freely.

If they have been forced upon you I have no interest in any of them.

 

[untermensche]

Color is a function of the human visual system, and is not an intrinsic property. Objects don't have a color, they give off light that appears to be a color. Spectral power distributions exist in the physical world, but color exists only in the mind of the beholder. Our perception of color is not an objective measure of anything about the light that enters our eyes, but it correlates pretty well with objective reality.

https://physics.info/color/

'Correlate with realty' means there is something in what is called the "real world" that correlates to the colors produced by the brain.

But as the preceding sentences make clear color is only something experienced in the mind.

No it doesn't. It uses unproven constructs to defend a position not held by the scientific community, the community of materials science. One cannot refer to a thing as evidence if the thing itself needs evidence not available. Simply redefining correlation outside the context in which it was employed does not rescue your failed position.

Here is an example of using evidence to produce a valid supported argument. https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...nd-Free-Choice&p=931796&viewfull=1#post931796

The scientific community can only say one thing about this.

We know what the energy is doing.

It is in no way passing information to cells.

Sensory cells have no mechanism to receive information from energy.

The cell knows when a Nitrogen atom has moved. It has mechanisms that recognize this movement and the mechanisms are understood.

The cell has no way to understand why the Nitrogen atom has moved.

That is real science as opposed to the religious nonsense you believe.

Color is an experience minds have.

It is nothing else.

There is no information about color in the external world. And the brain processes that create the experience of color are not color.

If you can't experience "red" you have no way to understand what it is.

There are evolved mechanisms in the brain that reflexively create the experience of color based on the movement of Nitrogen atoms inside cells. It is a reflex. The brain cannot do anything else besides create the color when Nitrogen atoms move in a specific array.