What is the actual free will humans have?

[Speakpigeon]

Illusion is not the correct word.

Our experience of red is not an illusion. It is real.

It's just that the object is not red.

Only our experience of it is red.

But experiences are real. They are not illusions.

Yes, absolutely.

That's exactly what I meant.

Thanks, anyway.
EB

 

[none]

the universe began when he said it began, sheesh you people

 

[Speakpigeon]

I'm finding it difficult to stomach "Our subjective experience of red is also an illusion since there's no redness as such in the physical world as described by science".

Science treating pure spectral energy on humans reliably recovers a 'red' response and to put color in terms of photic energy. Yes there are exceptions. Those with little or no color experience react somewhat differently. However, humans have very nice systems for dealing with hue whether it is pure, Raleigh, or something else derived. Humans also have a very nice capability to divine shape even though some in Africa, for instance, have no experience with 'round'. So when placing some attribute in one''s repertoire it is safe to include the ability to properly categorize color in line with physical properties and combinations of properties. The latter is exemplified by proper mixing of primaries with sensed direct and reflected light. It seems a shame to take out color when one agrees that shape is fundamentally related to assignment of edges with perspective for instance. there is no frequency or sound or size if one persists in pointing to language representations when the most direct representation is 'yes this matches that' or 'yes there is (physical stimulus quality) present or absent.

The experiences are not illusions. They are correct assignment of learned quality with actual stimulus by the observer.

If one wants to say all perception is indirect therefore not a reproduction in the observer's' mind' of the sensed energy or energy condition, one would be correct. But that is a world away from being an illusion. An illusion is experiencing something that is not actually there like experiencing a pipe going through a window frame when the pipe is only osculating within a frame.

I hpe no one was disabused to conclude the brain reproduces photic energy in the brain. One produces tags appropriate to photic energy in the brain, but, one is not seeing an illusion. Rather one is providing accurate reporting of physical entity to others.

There's an illusion. It's a very effective one and it's very simple.

It's also well understood. Except from you apparently.

Of course the subjective experience itself is not illusory. We have it. It is real. And I am on record for saying that subjective experience is indeed actual knowledge, more specifically 'knowledge by acquaintance', as I put it in my new wording in the poll about consciousness.

What I meant was that there is an illusion in that we naively believe that the colour red, the quality of redness as we experience it, is not at all subjective experience but a real physical thing out there. And that is absolutely not true. So, it can only be an illusion. An operationally effective illusion but an illusion nonetheless.

No brainer.
EB

 

[untermensche]

the universe began when he said it began, sheesh you people

That is not what I said.

I said the evidence we have available points to a beginning.

There is a difference.

 

[fast]

Illusion is not the correct word.

Our experience of red is not an illusion. It is real.

It's just that the object is not red.

Only our experience of it is red.

But experiences are real. They are not illusions.

I agree with everything except the middle sentence.

I believe the object is red, and by object, I'm talking about the apple that is external to the mind. However, I will grant you this: if all Earth life forms were to die off and an alien life form came to observe the apple and had no comparative human sight, they could not objectively show that the apple is red. So, I understand why you say it's not red, but meaning incorporates human bias. What it means to say the apple is red necessarily incorporates normal human vision.

See, it's so easy to say it's not red but only appears red or that we only experience red and why, but neither child nor adult is mistaken when they objectively identify the apple as red. Meaning. Meaning. Meaning. It extends the scope.

A nanometer is short compared to a light year, but when I say a nanometer is short without comparison, inherient in meaning is human bias. It's short to us. The apple is red to us. If it isn't red independent of our ability to experience it doesn't alter what it means to say it's red, as its correlate is to us.

 

[fromderinside]

I'm finding it difficult to stomach "Our subjective experience of red is also an illusion since there's no redness as such in the physical world as described by science".

Science treating pure spectral energy on humans reliably recovers a 'red' response and to put color in terms of photic energy. Yes there are exceptions. Those with little or no color experience react somewhat differently. However, humans have very nice systems for dealing with hue whether it is pure, Raleigh, or something else derived. Humans also have a very nice capability to divine shape even though some in Africa, for instance, have no experience with 'round'. So when placing some attribute in one''s repertoire it is safe to include the ability to properly categorize color in line with physical properties and combinations of properties. The latter is exemplified by proper mixing of primaries with sensed direct and reflected light. It seems a shame to take out color when one agrees that shape is fundamentally related to assignment of edges with perspective for instance. there is no frequency or sound or size if one persists in pointing to language representations when the most direct representation is 'yes this matches that' or 'yes there is (physical stimulus quality) present or absent.

The experiences are not illusions. They are correct assignment of learned quality with actual stimulus by the observer.

If one wants to say all perception is indirect therefore not a reproduction in the observer's' mind' of the sensed energy or energy condition, one would be correct. But that is a world away from being an illusion. An illusion is experiencing something that is not actually there like experiencing a pipe going through a window frame when the pipe is only osculating within a frame.

I hpe no one was disabused to conclude the brain reproduces photic energy in the brain. One produces tags appropriate to photic energy in the brain, but, one is not seeing an illusion. Rather one is providing accurate reporting of physical entity to others.

There's an illusion. It's a very effective one and it's very simple.

It's also well understood. Except from you apparently.

Of course the subjective experience itself is not illusory. We have it. It is real. And I am on record for saying that subjective experience is indeed actual knowledge, more specifically 'knowledge by acquaintance', as I put it in my new wording in the poll about consciousness.

What I meant was that there is an illusion in that we naively believe that the colour red, the quality of redness as we experience it, is not at all subjective experience but a real physical thing out there. And that is absolutely not true. So, it can only be an illusion. An operationally effective illusion but an illusion nonetheless.

No brainer.
EB

We are talking past each other. The experience matches perfectly with the energy of the 'color' reflected by all the plants and animals existing in our atmosphere. The same would be true if we moved to another atmosphere. The reflected energy would be the same as we name it consistent with our processing of the actual photons reaching our eyes. Seems to me that if the representation we use is consistent with what all other macro-environmental conditions then we are talking about coding rather our experience is an illusion which is different as I pointed out in my previous post.

Look, when sodium light in the dark falls upon a car which appears as red to us in sunlight The light that our eye receives from that combination are the high frequency photons observers report as blue when they see that car in that light. So the reports are faithful to the frequencies detected. Calling them colors is our experiential coding of those received light frequencies. The colors perceived because what the receptors received changed.

It appears the fallacy is one promoted by philosophers who report proper experiential coding as illusion. I think that myth continues form a time when it was believed incorrectly that what we saw was the same as what was actually there in the same way as it appeared outside our minds. The mind was reported to provide the essence of the thing it perceived. Obviously that is untrue. The fallacy was the mind captured the nature of reality which it isn't. We code what we receive consistent with what physically we receive, nothing more.

 

[ruby sparks]

Look, when sodium light in the dark falls upon a car which appears as red to us in sunlight The light that our eye receives from that combination are the high frequency photons observers report as blue when they see that car in that light. So the reports are faithful to the frequencies detected. Calling them colors is our experiential coding of those received light frequencies. The colors perceived because what the receptors received changed.

I can still see why this might be called an illusion. And I can see why it mightn't. I'm kinda torn, and a bit confused.

Is the car red, or blue? Is it either? Is the illusion that the car is or has any colour, of itself? This latter belief is, I think, what Speakpigeon is calling an illusion, which doesn't seem entirely unreasonable usage to me.

And what, for example, about a water mirage in the desert? Should we say that's not an illusion, on the basis that your brain IS accurately receiving the actual visual information that is travelling from the scene to your receptors?

 

[none]

the universe began when he said it began, sheesh you people

That is not what I said.

I said the evidence we have available points to a beginning.

There is a difference.

what evidence? and if you mention inflation you deserve to be slapped because we have evidence for inflation but not for an eternal or beginning to the universe

 

[fromderinside]

And what, for example, about a water mirage in the desert? Should we say that's not an illusion, on the basis that your brain IS accurately receiving the actual visual information that is travelling from the scene to your receptors?

Living things survive. The best explanation of how that is accomplished is by doing and acting more in accordance with the world that it's competition and predators. Now that leads to the conclusion that the best representation of the world is the most accurate one of the world. We are about four billion years down that path.

This thing about red being an illusion just make my blood boil. If sense information is reliably cataloged it seems fair for those who do so to be able to label what they see using consistent code. A code that matching physical dimension and object appearance in the real world.

Optical phenomena can lead to representations from great distances away has been demonstrated over and over. So mirage and other object illusions can be as the human sensing them sees them. The illusion is not that there is this image but that the image is nearby. I can go on like this all the time you have. My view is one where normal processing of normal information leads to wrong interpretations result in reports of illusions.

distorted sensation by drug or fatigue has medical cause to misrepresented by the afflicted subject and that is a valid illusory state.

Sunlight and sodium light have different properties so the red and blue cars are actually what the observer received from her receptors. And that is just coding of information received as experience, not illusion at all.

We need to put illusion where it belongs. If sense are working properly and conditions are normal then what is seen, heard, etc. is perceived as very near what is received by sense. If we call changing external conditions sufficient to get two different sense reports that is definitely not illusion worthy. It is only when the unexpected is seen and improperly reported like when conditions result is far away images to be seen nearby or rods are improperly seen swinging through window the window that is built as if it were short one one side and long on the other and the rod is just oscillating in one pane are actually just oscillating within a as the window that we are talking illusion. The illusion is explained by fooling the processors to take what is seen and complete it as if it were a window rotating and a rod following suit leaving just the little detail of the rod appearing to pass through the window as evidence the observer and his tools are being fooled.

Clearly modern philosophers who claim red is an illusion is leading from the the presumptive error that what is there must be reported as essence to be a translation of reality as was the case before science really got in the game. Now we know that senses pretty faithfully reflect the nature of the world to the organism and that the organism has methods to represent these actualities in such as image and oral code on a more or less one to one basis.

 

[Juma]

Illusion is not the correct word.

Our experience of red is not an illusion. It is real.

It's just that the object is not red.

Only our experience of it is red.

But experiences are real. They are not illusions.

I agree with everything except the middle sentence.

I believe the object is red, and by object, I'm talking about the apple that is external to the mind. However, I will grant you this: if all Earth life forms were to die off and an alien life form came to observe the apple and had no comparative human sight, they could not objectively show that the apple is red. So, I understand why you say it's not red, but meaning incorporates human bias. What it means to say the apple is red necessarily incorporates normal human vision.

See, it's so easy to say it's not red but only appears red or that we only experience red and why, but neither child nor adult is mistaken when they objectively identify the apple as red. Meaning. Meaning. Meaning. It extends the scope.

A nanometer is short compared to a light year, but when I say a nanometer is short without comparison, inherient in meaning is human bias. It's short to us. The apple is red to us. If it isn't red independent of our ability to experience it doesn't alter what it means to say it's red, as its correlate is to us.

? I think it was pretty obvious what he meant. You are mixing in the folk psychology view in a discussion about what is really going on. So, no. Your point is invalid. The apple is not the (singele) source of redness. Red it appears only to the eye of the mind.

- - - Updated - - -

Look, when sodium light in the dark falls upon a car which appears as red to us in sunlight The light that our eye receives from that combination are the high frequency photons observers report as blue when they see that car in that light. So the reports are faithful to the frequencies detected. Calling them colors is our experiential coding of those received light frequencies. The colors perceived because what the receptors received changed.

I can still see why this might be called an illusion. And I can see why it mightn't. I'm kinda torn, and a bit confused.

Is the car red, or blue? Is it either? Is the illusion that the car is or has any colour, of itself? This latter belief is, I think, what Speakpigeon is calling an illusion, which doesn't seem entirely unreasonable usage to me.

And what, for example, about a water mirage in the desert? Should we say that's not an illusion, on the basis that your brain IS accurately receiving the actual visual information that is travelling from the scene to your receptors?

Its only a matter of frame of view, of context. No big deal.

 

[untermensche]

Illusion is not the correct word.

Our experience of red is not an illusion. It is real.

It's just that the object is not red.

Only our experience of it is red.

But experiences are real. They are not illusions.

I agree with everything except the middle sentence.

I believe the object is red, and by object, I'm talking about the apple that is external to the mind...

I think that is impossible.

Suppose an object actually did have color. How would the color transmit itself to an evolving brain.

What would cause an evolving brain to create the proper color?

How would an evolving brain be informed whether it was creating the right or wrong color?

Color is just something that allows greater discrimination of objects. That is why it stayed once it arose randomly.

The color of birds and plants is something that arose in response to predators and the need for mating success, based on the color making abilities of the predator or mate.

 

[DBT]

We don't see objects directly. We see (perceive, detect, represent) reflected or transmitted light.

 

[ruby sparks]

And what, for example, about a water mirage in the desert? Should we say that's not an illusion, on the basis that your brain IS accurately receiving the actual visual information that is travelling from the scene to your receptors?

Living things survive. The best explanation of how that is accomplished is by doing and acting more in accordance with the world that it's competition and predators. Now that leads to the conclusion that the best representation of the world is the most accurate one of the world. We are about four billion years down that path.

This thing about red being an illusion just make my blood boil. If sense information is reliably cataloged it seems fair for those who do so to be able to label what they see using consistent code. A code that matching physical dimension and object appearance in the real world.

Optical phenomena can lead to representations from great distances away has been demonstrated over and over. So mirage and other object illusions can be as the human sensing them sees them. The illusion is not that there is this image but that the image is nearby. I can go on like this all the time you have. My view is one where normal processing of normal information leads to wrong interpretations result in reports of illusions.

distorted sensation by drug or fatigue has medical cause to misrepresented by the afflicted subject and that is a valid illusory state.

Sunlight and sodium light have different properties so the red and blue cars are actually what the observer received from her receptors. And that is just coding of information received as experience, not illusion at all.

We need to put illusion where it belongs. If sense are working properly and conditions are normal then what is seen, heard, etc. is perceived as very near what is received by sense. If we call changing external conditions sufficient to get two different sense reports that is definitely not illusion worthy. It is only when the unexpected is seen and improperly reported like when conditions result is far away images to be seen nearby or rods are improperly seen swinging through window the window that is built as if it were short one one side and long on the other and the rod is just oscillating in one pane are actually just oscillating within a as the window that we are talking illusion. The illusion is explained by fooling the processors to take what is seen and complete it as if it were a window rotating and a rod following suit leaving just the little detail of the rod appearing to pass through the window as evidence the observer and his tools are being fooled.

Clearly modern philosophers who claim red is an illusion is leading from the the presumptive error that what is there must be reported as essence to be a translation of reality as was the case before science really got in the game. Now we know that senses pretty faithfully reflect the nature of the world to the organism and that the organism has methods to represent these actualities in such as image and oral code on a more or less one to one basis.

I don't know what to say. To me, and taking on board everything you say, if I say that I think the car is red, it seems reasonable to say that's an illusion, because...well....it isn't red, of itself. So I have a false belief if I say it is. I am mistakenly attributing a property (colour) to the object, that it doesn't possess. The fact that I can also believe in different circumstances that the same car is blue arguably just makes it worse.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I'm finding it difficult to stomach "Our subjective experience of red is also an illusion since there's no redness as such in the physical world as described by science".
<snip>
the most direct representation is 'yes this matches that' or 'yes there is (physical stimulus quality) present or absent.
The experiences are not illusions.
<snip>
An illusion is experiencing something that is not actually there like experiencing a pipe going through a window frame when the pipe is only osculating within a frame.
<snip>
One produces tags appropriate to photic energy in the brain, but, one is not seeing an illusion.

There's an illusion. It's a very effective one and it's very simple.
Of course the subjective experience itself is not illusory. We have it. It is real. And I am on record for saying that subjective experience is indeed actual knowledge, more specifically 'knowledge by acquaintance', as I put it in my new wording in the poll about consciousness.
What I meant was that there is an illusion in that we naively believe that the colour red, the quality of redness as we experience it, is not at all subjective experience but a real physical thing out there. And that is absolutely not true. So, it can only be an illusion. An operationally effective illusion but an illusion nonetheless.
EB

We are talking past each other.

Me, I'm not. I replied accurately on your misreporting of what I had said.

The experience matches perfectly with the energy of the 'color' reflected by all the plants and animals existing in our atmosphere.

Perfectly? Obviously that's not true.

Experience is best thought of as a measure of the world out there and no measure could possibly be known a priori to be 'perfect'.

And in effect, this idea of perfection is part of what I deem an illusion. So, you seem in fact to conform to my characterisation. Wake up.

Seems to me that if the representation we use is consistent with what all other macro-environmental conditions then we are talking about coding rather our experience is an illusion which is different as I pointed out in my previous post.

I only need to repeat myself to show how much your characterisation here of what I said is wrong.

the subjective experience itself is not illusory. We have it. It is real. And I am on record for saying that subjective experience is indeed actual knowledge, more specifically 'knowledge by acquaintance', as I put it in my new wording in the poll about consciousness.
What I meant was that there is an illusion in that we naively believe that the colour red, the quality of redness as we experience it, is not at all subjective experience but a real physical thing out there.

What could possibly be unclear in there?

It appears the fallacy is one promoted by philosophers who report proper experiential coding as illusion.

I'd be very sceptical here. I'd like you to provide quotes from these people.

The mind was reported to provide the essence of the thing it perceived. Obviously that is untrue.

Not the 'essence'. The reality.

We spontaneously take our subjective experience of our perceptions of the world to be the world itself, literally. That's the illusion. And that's a very big illusion, even if it's rather a good thing to have it, at least initially.

The fallacy was the mind captured the nature of reality which it isn't.

Not the nature of reality but reality itself.

We code what we receive consistent with what physically we receive, nothing more.

Not 'consistent' but broadly consistent, and only in the sense that, presumably, we can only have at best very similar perceptions in similar physical conditions. They won't ever be identical from one situation to the next.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

It's just that the object is not red.
Only our experience of it is red.

I agree with everything except the middle sentence.
I believe the object is red, and by object, I'm talking about the apple that is external to the mind.
<snip>

The illusion we have is to take our subjective experience of our perception of a thing out there to be an actual apple and that it's out there in the physical world.

So, I understand why you say it's not red, but meaning incorporates human bias. What it means to say the apple is red necessarily incorporates normal human vision.

Sure but meaning reflects our beliefs and usage reflects the widespread or default sense of the words we use, so just to talk of an apple as if it was out there shows we're buying into the delusion I'm talking about.

See, it's so easy to say it's not red but only appears red or that we only experience red and why, but neither child nor adult is mistaken when they objectively identify the apple as red. Meaning. Meaning. Meaning. It extends the scope.

I doubt very much we all have identical perceptions of the same objects. Possibly very similar, but identical, no.

What we can be reasonably confident about is that we personally would have broadly consistent perceptions of the same thing in broadly similar situations.

This assumption seems sufficient to me to explain why and how we manage to understand each other, if we really do, when talking about the physical world.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

What I meant was that there is an illusion in that we naively believe that the colour red, the quality of redness as we experience it, is not at all subjective experience but a real physical thing out there. And that is absolutely not true. So, it can only be an illusion. An operationally effective illusion but an illusion nonetheless.
EB

Who believes that? I view color as a code for representing something we can't really express since we're not energy communicators. For me it's pretty simple. The nervous system encodes with tools that start with being sensitive to the category of sense they are meant to detect. Transduction and information processing of the sensed information follows. The task of reporting or communicating what one has 'seen' 'heard' etc. That task is accomplished with systems of codes and memories attached to those codes.

I've always had problems with creating a humunculus for subjective experience. If we just bypass this unnecessary devise, accept that our NS conducts work developing thoughts, we aren't left with tow worlds but rather we find there is one world of which we are a part. This especially true when one has to invent a subjective entity, stage whisper if you will, to 'explain' simple energy conversion and communication within a very sophisticated system. We fairly clearly see color and we effectively communicate that fact to all aspects of that experience. Again some have developed a entity for this communicator and experiencing a voice whispering 'go team' with a rehearsal plan, that for some, is separated out as consciousness.

Is all this building up really necessary? Hasn't anyone ever heard of feedback and rehearsal as aspects of perception?

OK. Some don't have particular receptors or way stations for all visible light frequencies. Swallowing sword. Broadly fits the bill. I was speaking of some sort of substance mind construct rather than noting the difference between reality and subjectivity.

Even though you didn't really connect with my current thesis you did respond. No, no, no, that's snarky. Sorry about that, I'm leaving it in there to give you a hint of how one might feel after a fairly good presentation. I mean that what's an operationally effective illusion if it isn't really some evidence of the presence of reality not an illusion as I took so much trouble to point out.

Comment: This tendency I have for transposing letters is really beginning to bother me. I have to 'fix' those I find which is up to twenty a post. Now that's a faulty subjective mechanism.

I'm tired.

 

[fromderinside]

I don't know what to say. To me, and taking on board everything you say, if I say that I think the car is red, it seems reasonable to say that's an illusion, because...well....it isn't red, of itself. So I have a false belief if I say it is. I am mistakenly attributing a property (colour) to the object, that it doesn't possess. The fact that I can also believe in different circumstances that the same car is blue arguably just makes it worse.

It is the same object seen in two different lights. It's two separate realities. Otherwise we need to go back and redefine illusion so it remains meaningful. It is a red car in sunlight and it is a blue car in sodium light. It is a car. No illusion, Just the facts mam.

The reporting of the global construct car' can take on many particularizations without labeling it as an illusion. It is the car in this light and this car in that light. I think the Germans are on to something by cobbling words from atoms.

 

[ruby sparks]

I don't know what to say. To me, and taking on board everything you say, if I say that I think the car is red, it seems reasonable to say that's an illusion, because...well....it isn't red, of itself. So I have a false belief if I say it is. I am mistakenly attributing a property (colour) to the object, that it doesn't possess. The fact that I can also believe in different circumstances that the same car is blue arguably just makes it worse.

It is the same object seen in two different lights. It's two separate realities. Otherwise we need to go back and redefine illusion so it remains meaningful. It is a red car in sunlight and it is a blue car in sodium light. It is a car. No illusion, Just the facts mam.

That does not compute. Sorry. Two separate realities?

And also, if you think it is a 'fact' that there's a car object........Hm.

 

[ruby sparks]

I view color as a code for representing something we can't really express since we're not energy communicators.

So you never experience seeing red cars?

I think you might be equating understanding illusions with making them go away.

 

[Speakpigeon]

What I meant was that there is an illusion in that we naively believe that the colour red, the quality of redness as we experience it, is not at all subjective experience but a real physical thing out there. And that is absolutely not true. So, it can only be an illusion. An operationally effective illusion but an illusion nonetheless.[/COLOR]
EB

Who believes that?

Cleary, many people do. In fact, as far as I can tell, that's also what I believed myself as a child.

And I take this belief as our default, unsophisticated notion of reality.

I can see you don't, and most scientifically literate people probably don't either, but you misrepresented what was the illusion I said we had so I had to explain it again to you.

Even though you didn't really connect with my current thesis you did respond. No, no, no, that's snarky. Sorry about that, I'm leaving it in there to give you a hint of how one might feel after a fairly good presentation. I mean that what's an operationally effective illusion if it isn't really some evidence of the presence of reality not an illusion as I took so much trouble to point out.

It would be absurd to talk of reality as an illusion. At a bare minimum, I know I'm real, ergo the existence of reality is not an illusion.

And I'm also quite confident that there must be something out there, something not part of my subjective experience. I just accept I don't actually know what may is.

And again, what I said was an illusion is that we spontaneously take our subjective experience of our perceptions of things to be the actual real objects there must be out there.

Comment: This tendency I have for transposing letters is really beginning to bother me. I have to 'fix' those I find which is up to twenty a post. Now that's a faulty subjective mechanism.

I'm tired.

Yes, and your bad spelling together with your sloppy syntaxe and vocabulary make it really difficult for us to read you.

We all have our issues, though.
EB