The human mind

[untermensche]

The experience of seeing the colour blue is not arbitrary. It is related to wavelength. Any number of people are able to agree that something is blue because colour, as experienced by the vast majority of people, is related to a wavelength.

If the odd person does not agree, they are probably colour blind.

That does not mean that other species or even other individuals see colour in the same way. But they can agree that they are seeing the same colour, however it is being labelled, because it is based on wavelength.

The wavelength has absolutely nothing to do with "blue".

The energy is not colored.

Only the experience is blue. And the experience is constructed by the brain. It is not what stimulated the eye.

Light energy that has nothing to do with blue is transformed into the experience of blue.

Transformed so a mind can experience it. That is all the brain is doing. Acting as a slave. Trying to provide the mind with information in a way a mind can understand it.

The mind cannot understand the light energy that hits the eye an just see. It can understand blue however. The energy has to be converted to something a mind can experience.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

So in the first I say that a neural transmission is a specific thing.

And then you define that the kind of "thing" that it is is a process:

The neural signal to the brain is a very specific and controlled process which makes it a thing.

Iow, a "thing" is a "very specific and controlled process."

It is a specific series of events of very specific elements. A very specific neurotransmitter is released from a specific part of the cell and is moving in a very specific direction and it is binding to a specific receptor. These specific events are happening in many places all over the brain. Other specific events are taking place like cell membranes are being depolarized in a specific manner with a specific charge and at a specific time.

Aka, PROCESS. Adding the word "specific" into the mix does not change the fact that it's all the same CATEGORY. How the fuck can you still not comprehend what a category is when you constantly jump from one to another?

From your argument by definition.

It is YOUR argument from definition. That's all this has ever been.

Thing:4 c : a particular state of affairs : SITUATION
look at this thing another way

You chose 4c. So, when you unnecessarily use the word "thing" instead of the far more accurate term "process" what you means is "a particular state of affairs." Iow, PROCESS:

process: a natural phenomenon marked by gradual changes that lead toward a particular result

So just use the far more accurate term "process."

But we know for certain that one thing, a neural transmission, must be changed to another thing, the generation of an experience, for it to happen.

To PROPERLY word that then we get:

But we know for certain that one process, a neural transmission, must be changed into another process, the generation of an experience.

Or, if you prefer:

But we know for certain that one particular state of affairs, a neural transmission, must be changed into another particular state of affairs, the generation of an experience.

So now we're finally getting there, but for one last step. There is no changing. At least not in any fundamental sense (i.e., "from one thing into a completely different thing"). There is a trigger stimulus (aka, the "neural transmission") that in turn results in additional neural transmissions.

The collective result of all of those transmissions being triggered--that whole process--is what generates an "experience," the term we apply--after the fact--to the totality of all of the neural transmissions that just occurred due to the triggering stimulus. Just for auld lang syne.

"Blue" was the wavelength of the dress your first girlfriend was wearing when you lost your virginity at 15, but it also the wavelength of the dress your mother was buried in when you were 48.

Blue has nothing to do with wavelengths.

Endlessly false. Again, just go into any library to comprehend the fact that the wavelength is coded to all of the stored information associated with the collective meta-category of "Blue."

See the wavelength; trigger the stored information cascade associated with that wavelength; update the stored information category with the new associations to that wavelength. That is the experience of "Blue" ever since Kindergarten, vershteh?

Of course you do. It is almost literally impossible not to understand this painfully simple and straightforward explanation. Particular stimulus triggers particular memories (good and bad; minor and cataclysmic; spot on or barely relevant) associated with the particular stimulus. That whole process is what we call an "experience."

End of discussion.

 

[untermensche]

Your tantrum is amazing.

Why I have to suffer the absolute ignorance that is fixated on meaningless nonsense is too bad.

A neural signal to the brain contains information. How exactly that information is stored and conveyed is unknown.

But that information is what causes a brain to convey very different information in a very different form to the mind.

You can't have the experience of blue unless a transformation has taken place.

Once again you have no content to your worthless criticisms.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Your tantrum is amazing.

Your pathetic reliance on ad hominem to avoid addressing all of the fatal flaws in your sophomoric thesis is revealing.

You can't have the experience of blue unless a transformation has taken place.

Irrelevant assertion even if it were in any way a substantive point and not just another example of your two-dimensional thinking. At bets, an experience is the result of the "transformation" that has taken place you fucking moron.

 

[untermensche]

When a neural signal becomes an experience a conversion must have taken place.

The stimulus is not blue. It has nothing to do with blue.

It can't become blue without a conversion.

Once again you have no point.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

When a neural signal becomes an experience

It does not "become" anything.

a conversion must have taken place.

Even if that were so, it is an entirely irrelevant observation. Do you just not understand what equivocation means? Clearly this must be the case, because the alternative is you're doing it on purpose, which just makes you a worthless fucking troll.

The stimulus is not blue.

You mean the stimulus is not the "experience" of "blue."

The stimulus is the wavelength; "blue" is the category of all stored memories associated with the wavelength; the "experience of blue" is the phenomenon that results when the wavelength stimulus triggers the category of stored memories associated with that wavelength--which in turn results in a nearly instantaneous review of all such stored memories--and concludes with the updated insertion of the new information collected in conjunction with the current wavelength stimulus into that category.

It has nothing to do with blue.

It is the single most important aspect of the category of associated memories referred to as "blue."

Once again you have no point.

Once again you reveal your mental incapacity and intellectual dishonesty.

Your thesis is eviscerated. Your counter-arguments are insipid and easily dismissed. You know all of this, which proves you to be trolling and nothing more.

 

[steve_bank]

Guven his posts on another thread I should have figured it out sooner. I searched on ;Chomsky body mind' Numerous hits and videos.

My guess is ubtermneche is interpreting and paraphrasing Chomsky. I scanned one paper written by someone else discussing Chomsky. Chomsky makes the metaphysical arguments about definitions and claims there can be no concept of the body. To me on this Chomsky is making metaphysical mumbo jumbo.

 

[steve_bank]

The experience of seeing the colour blue is not arbitrary. It is related to wavelength. Any number of people are able to agree that something is blue because colour, as experienced by the vast majority of people, is related to a wavelength.

If the odd person does not agree, they are probably colour blind.

That does not mean that other species or even other individuals see colour in the same way. But they can agree that they are seeing the same colour, however it is being labelled, because it is based on wavelength.

The wavelength has absolutely nothing to do with "blue".

The energy is not colored.

Only the experience is blue. And the experience is constructed by the brain. It is not what stimulated the eye.

Light energy that has nothing to do with blue is transformed into the experience of blue.

Transformed so a mind can experience it. That is all the brain is doing. Acting as a slave. Trying to provide the mind with information in a way a mind can understand it.

The mind cannot understand the light energy that hits the eye an just see. It can understand blue however. The energy has to be converted to something a mind can experience.

Now you are sounding like New Age mysticism. You obviously do not know any science at all. The RGB cones in the eye respond to wavelengths. What words we use to describe colors is arbitrary.

 

[untermensche]

When a neural signal becomes an experience

It does not "become" anything.

Since the neural signal has nothing to do with blue if you were right there would be no blue.

The stimulus is not blue.

You mean the stimulus is not the "experience" of "blue."

The stimulus does not have color. It does not have color information. It has nothing to do with color.

Color information is in the brain and nowhere else. The brain somehow creates the experience of color. We don't have the slightest idea how.

But since no information about color is in the stimulus the brain create color whole.

The stimulus is the wavelength; "blue"

Ignorance.

It is just energy in the world.

There is no way for an evolving organism to know what to make of it.

That a brain creates blue is a chance contingency of evolution.

 

[untermensche]

The experience of seeing the colour blue is not arbitrary. It is related to wavelength. Any number of people are able to agree that something is blue because colour, as experienced by the vast majority of people, is related to a wavelength.

If the odd person does not agree, they are probably colour blind.

That does not mean that other species or even other individuals see colour in the same way. But they can agree that they are seeing the same colour, however it is being labelled, because it is based on wavelength.

The wavelength has absolutely nothing to do with "blue".

The energy is not colored.

Only the experience is blue. And the experience is constructed by the brain. It is not what stimulated the eye.

Light energy that has nothing to do with blue is transformed into the experience of blue.

Transformed so a mind can experience it. That is all the brain is doing. Acting as a slave. Trying to provide the mind with information in a way a mind can understand it.

The mind cannot understand the light energy that hits the eye an just see. It can understand blue however. The energy has to be converted to something a mind can experience.

Now you are sounding like New Age mysticism. You obviously do not know any science at all. The RGB cones in the eye respond to wavelengths. What words we use to describe colors is arbitrary.

You sound like a blathering fool.

The cones in the retina have evolved to be able to react to light energy. That is true.

But what a brain turns that stimulus into has nothing to do with the stimulus.

Is like hitting a switch to turn on a light.

The hitting of the switch has nothing to do with light or what color the light is.

Energy hitting the retina has nothing to do with color.

My guess is ubtermneche is interpreting and paraphrasing Chomsky.

Try to find any of this in Chomsky's work. You won't.

Blathering fool.

 

[steve_bank]

Now you are sounding like New Age mysticism. You obviously do not know any science at all. The RGB cones in the eye respond to wavelengths. What words we use to describe colors is arbitrary.

You sound like a blathering fool.

The cones in the retina have evolved to be able to react to light energy. That is true.

But what a brain turns that stimulus into has nothing to do with the stimulus.

Is like hitting a switch to turn on a light.

The hitting of the switch has nothing to do with light or what color the light is.

Energy hitting the retina has nothing to do with color.

My guess is ubtermneche is interpreting and paraphrasing Chomsky.

Try to find any of this in Chomsky's work. You won't.

Blathering fool.

You are obviously unable to respond to questions outside bits and pieces you pick up from Chomsky.

Energy of a photon E = h * C/wavelength

h Plank's constant and C speed of light.

Theory that dates back to around 1900. Einstein and Plank.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_energy

The material in the cones on the retina are wavelength sensitive. At the atomic scale we would say for absorption to occur the wavelength of the electron in terms of energy in the equation must equal the band gap energy of the material. Textbook theory.

Photons are energy carriers. Absorption of photons by the cones causes an increase in energy in the cones resulting in a in a bioelectrical signal.

You are too ignorant of science to have a conversation,

 

[untermensche]

You sound like a blathering fool.

The cones in the retina have evolved to be able to react to light energy. That is true.

But what a brain turns that stimulus into has nothing to do with the stimulus.

Is like hitting a switch to turn on a light.

The hitting of the switch has nothing to do with light or what color the light is.

Energy hitting the retina has nothing to do with color.



Try to find any of this in Chomsky's work. You won't.

Blathering fool.

You are obviously unable to respond to questions outside bits and pieces you pick up from Chomsky.

Energy of a photon E = h * C/wavelength

h Plank's constant and C speed of light.

Theory that dates back to around 1900. Einstein and Plank.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_energy

The material in the cones on the retina are wavelength sensitive. At the atomic scale we would say for absorption to occur the wavelength of the electron in terms of energy in the equation must equal the band gap energy of the material. Textbook theory.

Photons are energy carriers. Absorption of photons by the cones causes an increase in energy in the cones resulting in a in a bioelectrical signal.

You are too ignorant of science to have a conversation,

The stimulus that excites the retina has a wavelength.

But blue does not have a wavelength.

Blue is an experience.

Experiences do not have wavelengths.

You confuse the stimulus with what the stimulus is arbitrarily turned into by an evolved brain.

There is no way for a brain to know what the stimulus should be turned into.

But somehow turning it into blue was advantageous and that mechanism of the brain remained.

 

[DBT]

The experience of seeing the colour blue is not arbitrary. It is related to wavelength. Any number of people are able to agree that something is blue because colour, as experienced by the vast majority of people, is related to a wavelength.

If the odd person does not agree, they are probably colour blind.

That does not mean that other species or even other individuals see colour in the same way. But they can agree that they are seeing the same colour, however it is being labelled, because it is based on wavelength.

The wavelength has absolutely nothing to do with "blue".

As I said, it is the brain that associates a wavelength with colour. The wavelength itself is not a colour.

The energy is not colored.

Holy Crock.....are you reading what is being said?

The mind cannot understand the light energy that hits the eye an just see. It can understand blue however. The energy has to be converted to something a mind can experience.

Gosh....maybe you can explain how that works?

 

[untermensche]

You're basically saying you totally agree.

Blue is just an evolutionary contingent, like the eye itself.

The stimulus is not blue. It does not have any information about blue.

Basically the stimulus hits the right switches and the brain creates the experience of blue.

And you want me to explain how a brain creates an experience?

If I did that I would win the Nobel.

 

[DBT]

You're basically saying you totally agree.

Blue is just an evolutionary contingent, like the eye itself.

The stimulus is not blue. It does not have any information about blue.

Basically the stimulus hits the right switches and the brain creates the experience of blue.

And you want me to explain how a brain creates an experience?

If I did that I would win the Nobel.

It is not my position that is in question.

The article in question is your claim of autonomy of mind.

In your own words: a 'smart mind operating a dumb brain.'

That is the claim that needs justifying. As this happens to be your claim, it is you who needs to justify that claim, not me, not anyone else, you.

 

[steve_bank]

You sound like a blathering fool.

The cones in the retina have evolved to be able to react to light energy. That is true.

But what a brain turns that stimulus into has nothing to do with the stimulus.

Is like hitting a switch to turn on a light.

The hitting of the switch has nothing to do with light or what color the light is.

Energy hitting the retina has nothing to do with color.



Try to find any of this in Chomsky's work. You won't.

Blathering fool.

You are obviously unable to respond to questions outside bits and pieces you pick up from Chomsky.

Energy of a photon E = h * C/wavelength

h Plank's constant and C speed of light.

Theory that dates back to around 1900. Einstein and Plank.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_energy

The material in the cones on the retina are wavelength sensitive. At the atomic scale we would say for absorption to occur the wavelength of the electron in terms of energy in the equation must equal the band gap energy of the material. Textbook theory.

Photons are energy carriers. Absorption of photons by the cones causes an increase in energy in the cones resulting in a in a bioelectrical signal.

You are too ignorant of science to have a conversation,

The stimulus that excites the retina has a wavelength.

But blue does not have a wavelength.

Blue is an experience.

Experiences do not have wavelengths.

You confuse the stimulus with what the stimulus is arbitrarily turned into by an evolved brain.

There is no way for a brain to know what the stimulus should be turned into.

But somehow turning it into blue was advantageous and that mechanism of the brain remained.

Experience of blue light subjective as it may be is still a function of how are brains are wired. If we both look at a c9lored object there us no way to know if my expence and yours is the same.

What we can do is scientifically divide light into wavelengths. Supported by experiment. The peak wavelengths for each of the types of cones in the eye are called red, blue, and green. The response of a cone has a distribution of wavelength sensivity that looks like a bell curve.

Please read the links.

Red, green, blue are physical definitions. If you shune white light on a blue painted object spectromters can acertain the absoption of blue wavelengths.

When you look at it there is no way to know I subjectively perceive it in the same way. However through what we learn as kids we will both call it the word blue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_spectrum

 

[untermensche]

You haven't told me anything I didn't fully understand a long time ago.

There is this stuff we call Electromagnetic Energy.



There is a tiny little section of this energy spectrum we call "visible light".

This tiny part of the EM spectrum must have properties related to biological life and have unique abilities to excite cells that other parts of the spectrum do not have.

But all EM energy can do is excite a cell. It can't give the cell information. It can't tell the cell "I'm supposed to be turned into blue".

Blue is something a brain turns the stimulation of retinal cells into.

Blue only exists as an experience.

It is not a property of objects or of EM energy. It is a property of the brain.

 

[untermensche]

You're basically saying you totally agree.

Blue is just an evolutionary contingent, like the eye itself.

The stimulus is not blue. It does not have any information about blue.

Basically the stimulus hits the right switches and the brain creates the experience of blue.

And you want me to explain how a brain creates an experience?

If I did that I would win the Nobel.

It is not my position that is in question.

The article in question is your claim of autonomy of mind.

In your own words: a 'smart mind operating a dumb brain.'

That is the claim that needs justifying. As this happens to be your claim, it is you who needs to justify that claim, not me, not anyone else, you.

You are asking me to explain how the mind works.

We don't even know what the objective mind is yet.

You can't explain how something you don't even understand yet works.

But we can say with absolute assurance: For opinions to have any meaning they must have been freely chosen.

If you can't freely choose your opinions they have no meaning.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Since the neural signal has nothing to do with blue if you were right there would be no blue.

The stimulus is not blue.

You mean the stimulus is not the "experience" of "blue."

The stimulus does not have color. It does not have color information. It has nothing to do with color.

Color information is in the brain and nowhere else. The brain somehow creates the experience of color. We don't have the slightest idea how.

But since no information about color is in the stimulus the brain create color whole.

The stimulus is the wavelength; "blue"

Ignorance.

It is just energy in the world.

There is no way for an evolving organism to know what to make of it.

That a brain creates blue is a chance contingency of evolution.

Once again in total:

The stimulus is the wavelength; "blue" is the category of all stored memories associated with the wavelength; the "experience of blue" is the phenomenon that results when the wavelength stimulus triggers the category of stored memories associated with that wavelength--which in turn results in a nearly instantaneous review of all such stored memories--and concludes with the updated insertion of the new information collected in conjunction with the current wavelength stimulus into that category.

You are a fucking troll.

 

[untermensche]

You are a fucking troll.

Not understanding a transformation is necessary to have the experience of color since nothing in the external
world has information about color makes you fucking lost.

Not understanding that color production may use memory but requires mechanisms that have nothing to do with memory makes you fucking ignorant.