Consciousness

[DBT]

You got that absolutely correct. It is the brain that creates colour. Just as colour, touch, sound, smell taste, thought and action are all aspects of conscious experience....which - just as you say - is created by the brain.

Mr Untermensche, you have hit the nail on the head. Your prize is a big fat Virtual Cuban Cigar that you can happily imagine smoking whilst basking in the pleasure of getting the issue of agency right.

Of course I got it right.

I understand this far better than you.

.

It doesn't show. What does show is your poor grasp of the subject matter, ignoring all evidence that contradicts your beliefs. You are blowing your own trumpet.

 

[untermensche]

New today, 4/30:

Do our senses reveal the world -- Or do they obscure it?
[YOUTUBE]J07XGg6Rnzo[/YOUTUBE]

We know as we drive safely through traffic that we do see the world accurately. At least in terms of shape and size of many objects in it.

 

[untermensche]

Of course I got it right.

I understand this far better than you.

.

It doesn't show. What does show is your poor grasp of the subject matter, ignoring all evidence that contradicts your beliefs. You are blowing your own trumpet.

I've tried to show your naive faith in the so-called research is juvenile, amateurish.

It hasn't helped you.

- - - Updated - - -

Recognizing context is not possible without memory function. Recognizing and distinguishing between colours is not possible without memory function. Consciousness degenerates into utterly meaningless, unrecognizable sensation without memory function.

Proof?

 

[untermensche]

You don't have the slightest idea what color is beyond something experienced.

That is why everything you say sounds like gibberish.

I compared the experience of something falling with experience of something's color you non reader.

Yes I knew your limitations coming in so I gave you rope with which you could hang yourself for everyone to see.

You didn't disappoint.

My review of your post? You showed you are unable to distinguish physical from sense. Worse you compared gravity to sense of color which I clearly separated.

Your stream of empty one liners are more for bilby than for me. He enjoys torturing you for your empty vessel right from the start. Me, I've been patient for some time.

I'm probably going to just pass your posts in the future since they are so obviously written only to poke

I see through your nonsense.

You have bad ideas wrapped in bad jargon.

And no more ability to learn.

 

[George S]

New today, 4/30:

Do our senses reveal the world -- Or do they obscure it?
[YOUTUBE]J07XGg6Rnzo[/YOUTUBE]

We know as we drive safely through traffic that we do see the world accurately. At least in terms of shape and size of many objects in it.

Clearly you did not watch this. Just as you never seem to read anyone's post for understanding.

- - - Updated - - -

I compared the experience of something falling with experience of something's color you non reader.

Yes I knew your limitations coming in so I gave you rope with which you could hang yourself for everyone to see.

You didn't disappoint.

My review of your post? You showed you are unable to distinguish physical from sense. Worse you compared gravity to sense of color which I clearly separated.

Your stream of empty one liners are more for bilby than for me. He enjoys torturing you for your empty vessel right from the start. Me, I've been patient for some time.

I'm probably going to just pass your posts in the future since they are so obviously written only to poke

I see through your nonsense.

You have bad ideas wrapped in bad jargon.

And no more ability to learn.

At best, tu quoque.

 

[untermensche]

We know as we drive safely through traffic that we do see the world accurately. At least in terms of shape and size of many objects in it.

Clearly you did not watch this. Just as you never seem to read anyone's post for understanding.

I read everything. But a lot of what is written here is religion, not fact. One does not bow to the brilliance of published research. One examines it to see if it really shows what it claims to show.

To move around quickly requires accurate representation of size and shape. Otherwise you constantly bump into things and fall off things.

So a lot of what we "see" is a very accurate representation of aspects of the external world.

At best, tu quoque.

Give me an example of some post of mine that is so jargon ridden it is unintelligible.

The person I was speaking with, not you, does it constantly.

This jargon laden nonsense is pretending to know something, not actually knowing anything.

He does not have the first clue what color is beyond the experience of it.

Nobody does.

 

[Juma]

Clearly you did not watch this. Just as you never seem to read anyone's post for understanding.

I read everything. But a lot of what is written here is religion, not fact. One does not bow to the brilliance of published research. One examines it to see if it really shows what it claims to show.

To move around quickly requires accurate representation of size and shape. Otherwise you constantly bump into things and fall off things.

So a lot of what we "see" is a very accurate representation of aspects of the external world.

At best, tu quoque.

Give me an example of some post of mine that is so jargon ridden it is unintelligible.

The person I was speaking with, not you, does it constantly.

This jargon laden nonsense is pretending to know something, not actually knowing anything.

He does not have the first clue what color is beyond the experience of it.

Nobody does.

"Too move around quickly" does not require an accurate representation of reality, it require a USEFUL representation. An accurate would have us a killed in a moment since it wouldnt show us what we need to see. Think of the experienced world around us more as a instment panel than atrue representation.

 

[untermensche]

"Too move around quickly" does not require an accurate representation of reality, it require a USEFUL representation. An accurate would have us a killed in a moment since it wouldnt show us what we need to see. Think of the experienced world around us more as a instment panel than atrue representation.

What I said was an accurate representation of size and shape. Which is really the same thing. If you know the shape of something you know its size.

So size and shape have to be accurate. If you want to move around quickly.

Which allows color to be useful.

 

[Juma]

"Too move around quickly" does not require an accurate representation of reality, it require a USEFUL representation. An accurate would have us a killed in a moment since it wouldnt show us what we need to see. Think of the experienced world around us more as a instment panel than atrue representation.

What I said was an accurate representation of size and shape. Which is really the same thing. If you know the shape of something you know its size.

So size and shape have to be accurate. If you want to move around quickly.

Which allows color to be useful.

no. Size and shape has to be reported in such a way that it is useful to you.

 

[Speakpigeon]

What I said was an accurate representation of size and shape. Which is really the same thing. If you know the shape of something you know its size.

So size and shape have to be accurate. If you want to move around quickly.

Which allows color to be useful.

no. Size and shape has to be reported in such a way that it is useful to you.

Yes, exactly so. Well said!
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

New today, 4/30:

Do our senses reveal the world -- Or do they obscure it?
[YOUTUBE]J07XGg6Rnzo[/YOUTUBE]

So, what does it say exactly?

Or is it enough to say that the world exists but not as we see it?

It take it "the world" really means "the world out there" because otherwise there are things that do exist as we see them. I'm just making a very basic logical observation here because whatever we see has to exist somehow and it will exist precisely just as we see it, even if that isn't part of the world somehow.

Of course it's also not really true that we know there's a world out there to begin with. We can certainly assume there's one. Believe there's one. Be absolutely convinced there is one but it's not true that we know there is one. Even if in the event it's true that there is one.

So already the first half of the message, "the world exists", is just plain wrong. And the second half is only half true since there has to be things that do exist just as we see them.

See? I didn't have to watch the thing. A bit of logic certainly goes a long way.

Further, I'm not sure if you realised the contradiction there is in pretending to deliver a message purporting to say something true about the world and our relation to it, using a visual media, meaning that we need to see the message, which is presumably out there in the world, but, according to the message then, not as we see it. A bit awkward that. It sends us back to paradoxes like "This sentence is false", so often discussed on this forum. This sentence exists - But it's just not true!

So, maybe it's just as well I didn't bother.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Speakpigeon wrote:

The point is that we experience redness so it cannot possibly not exist as such, whereas we don't experience at all the possible correlates of redness in the physical world, say, electromagnetic frequencies and such, so in fact we don't even know they exist (as such).

Jeez. The trails you drag your across to say something that is different from what I am saying. There is the physical universe from which comes the energy to impinge on human sensors. Physically respondent sensors permit encoding of information to the nervous systems which processes it. What humans do with that information is use it to construct models of what is sensed that are purely information. I don't know how many times I've differentiated information from physical energy, yet you still confuse what I write with being outside your frame of reference which is classical mostly. Redness is something we believe.

I say redness is related to energy in the 500-650 nm wavelength range simply because the nervous system uses sensors sensitive to such which are transferred up to cortex in spatially and energy frequency linked channels just as acoustic information is transferred up the nervous system to cortex in frequency and arrival time related channels.

Stimulate receptors which respond to red wavelengths (physical scale) and to receptors which respond to orange wavelengths and you will find them very near physically to each other as their information is transmitted up the nervous system to cortex. Its the same type of representton as makes up the touch and vibration homunculus for light and sound. I really don't see how it's a tough problem at all.

If information is preserved IAC with physical stimulus in the NS it is reasonable to assume tht as one learns about the outside world one would develop connections between what is input and what one =experiences. Not hard at all. Yes redness is sense information , it is not not sense stimuli. However relations with the nature of sense stimuli are maintained throughout the sensory pathway and even to the language or experience regions of the brain. Redness is related to red signals IAC with the physical stimulus energy, particularly evident in vision.

Your wandering around trying to protect an imagined thing, quale, as other than the result of physical stimulus is far fetched. As we learn that consciousness is after the fact we learn that what we presumed made up consciousness is not as we once thought. Instead it is completely explained as making judgments about inputs base on their association with other inputs that are similar. No magic. No new dimension or phenomena, its just information organized as it physical information is related in nature.

My first failing was a a sensory scientist not explicitly and completely explaining something I presumed was understood by intelligent people.. My second failing was not making clear that I understand animals evolved developing senses respondent to information to they depend to survive. The nervous system is extremely organized when it comes to its relation with location, light, sound, scent, movement, etc. For failing to explicitly point out those items I apologize.

I hope you have enough information now to understand what I am saying and why I am saying it.

We are saying the same thing except I relate it to the physical reference by pointing out how the brain relative to how physical information is organized in sense input while you seem to require an entire new dimension to produce sense data (uh, information by any other name).

 

[untermensche]

What I said was an accurate representation of size and shape. Which is really the same thing. If you know the shape of something you know its size.

So size and shape have to be accurate. If you want to move around quickly.

Which allows color to be useful.

no. Size and shape has to be reported in such a way that it is useful to you.

Representing size and shape accurately is useful for a moving animal.

It is also necessary.

You are not saying anything.

 

[fromderinside]

Another shout out from the peanut gallery

Presume a crouching tiger is similar in size and shape to a shrouded dragon. I'm pretty sure one would have to be prepared to respond quickly to a crouching tiger. A shrouded dragon? Perhaps you're play with a child? Eyup, all that matters is size and shape.

Uh, n...o....

 

[untermensche]

Another shout out from the peanut gallery

Presume a crouching tiger is similar in size and shape to a shrouded dragon. I'm pretty sure one would have to be prepared to respond quickly to a crouching tiger. A shrouded dragon? Perhaps you're play with a child? Eyup, all that matters is size and shape.

Uh, n...o....

Now you are talking color, not just size.

Without color the crouching tiger is a fed tiger.

 

[fromderinside]

About one half of one percent of humans are completely color blind, that is they see in shades of gray. I believe these ratios hold in India as well. I'm pretty sure these people do as well against crouching tigers as do fully color able people. Oh, and a lot of other animals where tigers live are also color blind.

You trolley just left the tracks sir.

 

[Juma]

no. Size and shape has to be reported in such a way that it is useful to you.

Representing size and shape accurately is useful for a moving animal.

It is also necessary.

You are not saying anything.

speed, movement and weight are properties that are extremely important. Mnone of these can perceived visually and yet we experience them by sight. Outr eyes have speedsensors, our brain calculates speed and guessed the weight for us.
Etc. Neither of theese are the real world outside us but enhancements added to the experience by brain.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Speakpigeon wrote:

The point is that we experience redness so it cannot possibly not exist as such, whereas we don't experience at all the possible correlates of redness in the physical world, say, electromagnetic frequencies and such, so in fact we don't even know they exist (as such).

Jeez. The trails you drag your across to say something that is different from what I am saying. There is the physical universe from which comes the energy to impinge on human sensors. Physically respondent sensors permit encoding of information to the nervous systems which processes it. What humans do with that information is use it to construct models of what is sensed that are purely information. I don't know how many times I've differentiated information from physical energy, yet you still confuse what I write with being outside your frame of reference which is classical mostly. Redness is something we believe.

I say redness is related to energy in the 500-650 nm wavelength range simply because the nervous system uses sensors sensitive to such which are transferred up to cortex in spatially and energy frequency linked channels just as acoustic information is transferred up the nervous system to cortex in frequency and arrival time related channels.

Stimulate receptors which respond to red wavelengths (physical scale) and to receptors which respond to orange wavelengths and you will find them very near physically to each other as their information is transmitted up the nervous system to cortex. Its the same type of representton as makes up the touch and vibration homunculus for light and sound. I really don't see how it's a tough problem at all.

If information is preserved IAC with physical stimulus in the NS it is reasonable to assume tht as one learns about the outside world one would develop connections between what is input and what one =experiences. Not hard at all. Yes redness is sense information , it is not not sense stimuli. However relations with the nature of sense stimuli are maintained throughout the sensory pathway and even to the language or experience regions of the brain. Redness is related to red signals IAC with the physical stimulus energy, particularly evident in vision.

Your wandering around trying to protect an imagined thing, quale, as other than the result of physical stimulus is far fetched. As we learn that consciousness is after the fact we learn that what we presumed made up consciousness is not as we once thought. Instead it is completely explained as making judgments about inputs base on their association with other inputs that are similar. No magic. No new dimension or phenomena, its just information organized as it physical information is related in nature.

My first failing was a a sensory scientist not explicitly and completely explaining something I presumed was understood by intelligent people.. My second failing was not making clear that I understand animals evolved developing senses respondent to information to they depend to survive. The nervous system is extremely organized when it comes to its relation with location, light, sound, scent, movement, etc. For failing to explicitly point out those items I apologize.

I hope you have enough information now to understand what I am saying and why I am saying it.

We are saying the same thing except I relate it to the physical reference by pointing out how the brain relative to how physical information is organized in sense input while you seem to require an entire new dimension to produce sense data (uh, information by any other name).

I don't understand how you can be so thick. It's beyond comprehension. Why are you doing this?!

I've already told you, several times already in fact, that I understand, and for that matter I'm sure we all do around here, your tedious scientific lectures, this one as well as all the others. But they are wholly unnecessary and only a waste of time. Unnecessary because we all know the story and we understand it and I personally didn't have to wait for your explanations to understand it, as I already told you some time ago. Now, guess what? Though we understand the science well enough we still argue the existence of consciousness, subjective experience, qualia. So, either you upgrade to some powerful AI extension to your cortex or you will forever miss the point. No, we're no saying the same thing and it's quite clear. You say qualia are somehow "imagined", which usually means non-existent, as in "an imagined god", whereas I say I know my qualia and qualia are all that I know, which logically entails that qualia exist for real, whereas I don't know whether there's anything like a world out there, even if there is actually one. So we say contradictory things and I don't believe somebody normally intelligent could possibly insist like you do in making irrelevant arguments again and again even though I've already pointed this out to you. I'm not trying to "protect" anything because I don't have to. Whether you yourself experience qualia is irrelevant. Whether you accept that I do is irrelevant. I don't expect anybody to be able ever to do anything about the existence of qualia except to talk about it. To me it's just one mystery and mysteries have to be pointed out. But there are others. Big deal.

And yet you will keep going, on and on and on and on. Please, once again, go on, tell me how I am imagining I am experiencing redness.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Representing size and shape accurately is useful for a moving animal.

It is also necessary.

You are not saying anything.

speed, movement and weight are properties that are extremely important. Mnone of these can perceived visually and yet we experience them by sight. Outr eyes have speedsensors, our brain calculates speed and guessed the weight for us.
Etc. Neither of theese are the real world outside us but enhancements added to the experience by brain.

I had limited my comments to what was necessary to move quickly through obstacles.

Accurate representation of shape and size, not weight, is necessary for this.

It is also useful. But that goes without saying.

That which is necessary is useful.

 

[untermensche]

About one half of one percent of humans are completely color blind, that is they see in shades of gray. I believe these ratios hold in India as well. I'm pretty sure these people do as well against crouching tigers as do fully color able people. Oh, and a lot of other animals where tigers live are also color blind.

You trolley just left the tracks sir.

My trolley fell off because you made a guess.