The human mind

[Koyaanisqatsi]

This is not evidence.

You have never once presented any evidence so stfu.

 

[untermensche]

This is not evidence.

You have never once presented any evidence so stfu.

I am not claiming color production is a function of memory.

That is total nonsense and you have nothing to support it with.

Some shit you pulled from your ass.

All we know is the brain creates the experience of color when the eye is exposed to certain stimuli.

We could recreate the color without any light if we understood how information was carried from the retina to the brain.

 

[untermensche]

This is the order of things.

To have a memory first requires having an experience.

The experience of color must exist before the memory can exist.

Anything that is experienced could theoretically be stored in memory.

Something that has been experienced many times will potentially be remembered extremely well.

So well a person can use their memory to imagine a color.

But imagining a color and experiencing a color within the visual experience are completely different processes.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

This is not evidence.

You have never once presented any evidence so stfu.

I am not claiming color production is a function of memory.

Nor am I.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

This is the order of things.

To have a memory first requires having an experience.

The experience of [a wavelength of] color [and everything that was happening at the time of the stimulus striking the retinae] must exist before the memory can exist.

Anything that is experienced could theoretically be is stored in memory.

Something that has been experienced many times will potentially be remembered extremely well.

So well a person can use their memory to imagine a color.

And/or those memories can be triggered by the wavelength associated with that group of memories. Exactly as I have been pointing out repeatedly.

But imagining a color and experiencing a color within the visual experience are completely different processes.

No, same process, different information, but even if it were two different processes, that is an irrelevant observation that changes absolutely nothing about the manner in which the totality of the processes produces an "experience."

 

[untermensche]

I am not claiming color production is a function of memory.

Nor am I.

OK. Thanks for the input.

Have a good life.

The order of things is still experience first memory second.

Mechanisms to create the experience of color must exist that are not mechanisms of memory but are simply mechanisms that create the experience of color.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The order of things is still experience first memory second.

Equivocation. The experience is the whole process of stimulus to retrieval to update to re-storage, which all takes place in a few millliseconds, if that.

The wavelength is the stimulus; “blue” is the category of all memories associated with the wavelength stimulus; the “experience of blue” is the result of the process of retrieving the memories and updating the category with the newly formed memory.

It does not matter if during that process information is lost or gained or if there are different processes involved. Again, the experience is the whole process of stimulus to retrieval to update to re-storage.

If it is the first time the hypothetical infant is seeing a particular wavelength, then the experience is far more limited to just the information being gathered by the body at the time of seeing the wavelength. As the infant grows, more and more information gets stored in the category associated with the wavelength (and other associations).

By the time the now five year old child attends Kindergarten, it has encountered the wavelength likely thousands of times and each and every time it does the brain stores that information with the exact same association coding (i.e., to that wavelength).

Once the Kindergarten teacher teaches the child that we call the wavelength "blue" the child's brain updates the category of stored information associated with the wavelength to "blue" and from that point forward, whenever the wavelength strikes the eyes, it triggers the retrieval of all associated stored information while at the same time updating the category with the new information.

That entire series of processes is what generates what we call the "experience of blue" for each individual.

It is painfully straightforward and pretty much exactly what you are now trying to claim as your own in these idiotic, intellectually dishonest and transparent incremental shifts, which, once again, just proves you're pointlessly trolling.

So once again for auld lang syne: Experience is the whole process of: stimulus to retrieval to update to re-storage.

A fucking zygote could understand it at this point.

 

[untermensche]

The experience is the whole process of stimulus to retrieval to update to re-storage, which all takes place in a few millliseconds, if that.

No.

There is no experience of the stimuli.

There is only experience of some end product that was constructed using the stimuli.

And you are right the stimuli is seemingly instantaneously transformed from one kind of information into an entirely different kind of information.

The mechanisms that create the visual experience are incredible. Most of the cerebrum are the visual mechanisms. It is a huge function of the cerebrum.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The experience is the whole process of stimulus to retrieval to update to re-storage, which all takes place in a few millliseconds, if that.

No.

Yes.

There is no experience of the stimuli.

Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you on the spectrum, because short of either, you're trolling. The initial "experience" that relates to any stimulus is what the body--i.e., the sensory input devices that make up the body--is "recording" at the time of any given stimulus event.

Iow, the body is always sending trillions of bits of information to the brain. It is a constant flow of information--from the outside and from the inside--most of which is just discarded or shunted as non-vital or non-novel. Part of that processing is ASSOCIATION, where certain information gets associated with other bits of information (either stored or currently being processed).

A stimulus triggers the retrieval of associated stored information (if it exists), but it also results in the storing of new information associated with the current stimulus.

You see a young woman wearing a blue dress. Stimulus. This stimulus triggers associated memories (e.g., "first girlfriend wore similar blue dress"; "mother died wearing a blue dress"; "the color of my first car was blue"; "that girl in the blue dress is pretty and I want to have sex with her;" etc., etc., etc.).

ALL of that in turn generates an "experience of blue."

There is only experience of some end product that was constructed using the stimuli.

Which is pretty much exactly what I was saying that you are now transparently trying to co-opt as your own, you pathetic, intellectually dishonest troll.

And you are right the stimuli is seemingly instantaneously transformed from one kind of information into an entirely different kind of information.

No, not "entirely different kind," though that wouldn't matter even if true. Information is information. Process is process. It is the totality of information processing that generates an "experience." For the twentieth time now.

 

[untermensche]

You see a young woman wearing a blue dress. Stimulus. This stimulus triggers associated memories (e.g., "first girlfriend wore similar blue dress"; "mother died wearing a blue dress"; "the color of my first car was blue"; "that girl in the blue dress is pretty and I want to have sex with her;" etc., etc., etc.).

So fucking what?

A memory might be triggered or might not. The experience of the color is the same.

Some unrelated memory has nothing to do with the real time experience.

You are just babbling about nonsense.

No, not "entirely different kind

Yes entirely.

One is colorless information, light energy, and one is the experience of color.

Two completely different kinds of information.

You are fucking lost!

 

[steve_bank]

The barb dies create a color. There are red, teen, and blue sensors in the eye. Shades of color are the result of relative levels in the RGB sensors. Just like color TV.

Ever have a vivid color dream? Ever daydream in color?

What you see is essentially a TV screen created by the brain. Yes vision is a product of the brain, it is generically wired with nervous system and brain. Colors are filled in. From experiment every one does not have the exact same perceptions. We learn to interpret color.

Shown experimental some critters other than humans have color vision some do not. Some see into the ultraviolet. Some see infrared.

Carrion birds are attracted to the color of blood and guts.

The light has different wavelengths. It has no color.

Color is something a brain creates in response to differing wavelengths of EM energy.

There is no blue light. No blue objects.

There is colorless energy of differing wavelengths that a brain turns into blue.

The only place blue exists is as an experience. In the mind.

I don't know how many other ways I could say this before you comprehend.

Color is something a brain turns colorless EM energy into.

A rock exists, rock is a definition of a category of objects. Etc etc etc...

Still do not see thy point you are trying to make. Agreed the brain creates the perception we have of the grup of wavelengths we cal bloe. Blue as a rag is arbiter. We could call zitbog.

The band of wavelengths we call blue excites the retina which sends bioelectric signals to the brain which creates what we call vision. How is it blue does not exist? What do you mean when you say blue?
Blue light is a definition. Kilogram is a definition.

 

[untermensche]

The barb dies create a color. There are red, teen, and blue sensors in the eye. Shades of color are the result of relative levels in the RGB sensors. Just like color TV.

Ever have a vivid color dream? Ever daydream in color?

What you see is essentially a TV screen created by the brain. Yes vision is a product of the brain, it is generically wired with nervous system and brain. Colors are filled in. From experiment every one does not have the exact same perceptions. We learn to interpret color.

Shown experimental some critters other than humans have color vision some do not. Some see into the ultraviolet. Some see infrared.

Carrion birds are attracted to the color of blood and guts.

The light has different wavelengths. It has no color.

Color is something a brain creates in response to differing wavelengths of EM energy.

There is no blue light. No blue objects.

There is colorless energy of differing wavelengths that a brain turns into blue.

The only place blue exists is as an experience. In the mind.

I don't know how many other ways I could say this before you comprehend.

Color is something a brain turns colorless EM energy into.

A rock exists, rock is a definition of a category of objects. Etc etc etc...

Still do not see thy point you are trying to make. Agreed the brain creates the perception we have of the grup of wavelengths we cal bloe. Blue as a rag is arbiter. We could call zitbog.

The band of wavelengths we call blue excites the retina which sends bioelectric signals to the brain which creates what we call vision. How is it blue does not exist? What do you mean when you say blue?
Blue light is a definition. Kilogram is a definition.

Your memory is totally fucked up.

There is no enjoyment in telling you the same things over and over.

Blue exists.

It is an experience.

It is not a stimulus.

 

[DBT]

Autonomy of mind is needed for any opinion to have value.

That is what I am asking you to prove. You are just re-stating your claim. You need to demonstrate why this is supposed to be the case.

Tell me how any opinion you have has any value unless you have it freely.

Tell me how a forced opinion has value.

You are the one offering an opinion. I am the one asking you to justify your opinion with an explanation.

Just an argument supported with evidence.

That's all.

Why is this so difficult?

 

[untermensche]

Tell me how any opinion you have has any value unless you have it freely.

Tell me how a forced opinion has value.

You are the one offering an opinion. I am the one asking you to justify your opinion with an explanation.

Just an argument supported with evidence.

That's all.

Why is this so difficult?

You are spewing opinion after opinion. To say a study is well done is an opinion.

Tell me how any opinion you have has any value unless you have it freely.

Tell me how a forced opinion has value.

 

[DBT]

A question is not an opinion. I am simply asking you to explain your claim. That is a question.

 

[untermensche]

A question is not an opinion. I am simply asking you to explain your claim. That is a question.

A question not freely asked is meaningless.

Is this you freely deciding to ask this specific question you have freely decided has some importance?

Or is this a meaningless question your "programming" is forcing you to ask?

 

[DBT]

Ahem, you are still avoiding the question.

 

[untermensche]

Ahem, you are still avoiding the question.

No you are.

This is the philosophy section and you have no ability to make philosophical judgements.

How is an opinion worth something unless it is freely made?

Saying you like ice cream when you are forced to say it is meaningless.

 

[steve_bank]

A rock exists, rock is a definition of a category of objects. Etc etc etc...

Still do not see thy point you are trying to make. Agreed the brain creates the perception we have of the grup of wavelengths we cal bloe. Blue as a rag is arbiter. We could call zitbog.

The band of wavelengths we call blue excites the retina which sends bioelectric signals to the brain which creates what we call vision. How is it blue does not exist? What do you mean when you say blue?
Blue light is a definition. Kilogram is a definition.

Your memory is totally fucked up.

There is no enjoyment in telling you the same things over and over.

Blue exists.

It is an experience.

It is not a stimulus.

That throbbing head ache and clenched teeth when you post, is that an experience without a stimulus?

 

[DBT]

Ahem, you are still avoiding the question.

No you are.

This is the philosophy section and you have no ability to make philosophical judgements.

How is an opinion worth something unless it is freely made?

Saying you like ice cream when you are forced to say it is meaningless.

Again, a question is not a claim.....so asking a question is not an instance of 'avoiding the question'

If I am the one asking a question - which is clearly the case - It cannot be me who is avoiding the question.

That falls upon the one being asked the question, which happens to be you. You are being asked a question.

As it happens, you are the one being asked a question: you are being asked to justify your claim of autonomy of mind, and not just state it as if it is an established fact when it is not an established fact.

That is the question being asked of you.

Now can you address this question or not?