Split from 'Non-human animals as moral subjects'
Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker
GrahamH wrote:It would help is you watched the video.
https://youtu.be/VIg5HkyauoY?t=19s for rainbows without blue. It's only 19s in FFS.
...
romansh wrote:GrahamH wrote:romansh wrote:GrahamH wrote:I think I'm with SoS on this. 'physical colour', the physics of light and bus and visual system is a reliable discriminator of colour. The 'my red is like your red' spook inner mental world stuff is probably illusion. The bus isn't an illusion.
Well I agree our perception of 'colour' is a reasonable discriminator of colour (or at least photon wavelengths) . That was never an issue.
Sorry, I'm lost. I don't know what you are asking.
In this post I was not asking anything. Just agreeing that our vision has a reasonable colour discrimination. And also pointing out this was never an issue at least not for this thread.
So this whole thing started when I claimed, much as the gentleman in your video, that colour was an illusion.
zoon wrote:In summary, I think that for most practical purposes in everyday life, when considering our thoughts and other people’s thoughts (including colour qualia), those mental events can be taken to be private to individuals, and originated by them, but that there is no need to suppose that the privacy or the origination, both of which contradict science, are aspects of ultimate reality. If they are treated instead as useful approximations (like Newtonian mechanics), they can be useful without being misleading illusions.
scott1328 wrote:Jesus Christ, David. Read the fucking post.
DavidMcC wrote:zoon wrote:In summary, I think that for most practical purposes in everyday life, when considering our thoughts and other people’s thoughts (including colour qualia), those mental events can be taken to be private to individuals, and originated by them, but that there is no need to suppose that the privacy or the origination, both of which contradict science, are aspects of ultimate reality. If they are treated instead as useful approximations (like Newtonian mechanics), they can be useful without being misleading illusions.
Wow! Where to begin?!
A. Colour vision is not a thought, even if the qualia that may be associated with it are. It is merely something to think ABOUT. Vision occurs in the visual cortex, not the prefrontal cortex.
B. "...privacy or the origination, both of which contradict science"?? How so? The origination of our own ideas may be mainly through stimulation by sensory input (either before or during the idea). In my experience, at least.
C. "treated as useful approximations" to what, exactly?
zoon wrote:DavidMcC wrote:zoon wrote:In summary, I think that for most practical purposes in everyday life, when considering our thoughts and other people’s thoughts (including colour qualia), those mental events can be taken to be private to individuals, and originated by them, but that there is no need to suppose that the privacy or the origination, both of which contradict science, are aspects of ultimate reality. If they are treated instead as useful approximations (like Newtonian mechanics), they can be useful without being misleading illusions.
Wow! Where to begin?!
A. Colour vision is not a thought, even if the qualia that may be associated with it are. It is merely something to think ABOUT. Vision occurs in the visual cortex, not the prefrontal cortex.
B. "...privacy or the origination, both of which contradict science"?? How so? The origination of our own ideas may be mainly through stimulation by sensory input (either before or during the idea). In my experience, at least.
C. "treated as useful approximations" to what, exactly?
A. I don’t think I’ve claimed that colour vision is a thought. In the paragraph of mine which you quote above, I said that colour qualia are thoughts, things that we’ve evolved to categorise as mental events. You appear to be agreeing with that categorisation?
B. Again, as far as I can tell I’m agreeing with you. You are saying that ideas are caused by physical events, which is the usual modern view, based on science, and I agree with it.
....
zoon wrote:
Perhaps, whether or not something counts as an illusion depends on whether one is deceived by it. isleading illusions.
scott1328 wrote:Red cannot be an illusion, if an illusion is defined as "not what it seems," and "red" is defined to be a label the mind attaches to a particular class of sensations.
scott1328 wrote:Red cannot be an illusion, if an illusion is defined as "not what it seems," and "red" is defined to be a label the mind attaches to a particular class of sensations.
scott1328 wrote:Red cannot be an illusion, if an illusion is defined as "not what it seems," and "red" is defined to be a label the mind attaches to a particular class of sensations.
jamest wrote:
Graham, as you acknowledge consciousness and/or the brain has no absolute/direct knowledge/observation of anything, so please therefore inform us of something which is not an illusion.
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest