Posted: Aug 15, 2017 12:25 am
by jamest
The_Metatron wrote:Not quite.

I thought carefully about that. I compared its color against my internal model of the colors of the shirts I know are mine.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You've either overlooked or dismissed my point, which is still pertinent to this overarching "internal model". I mean, your whole internal model was formed early from being a babe without any conscious knowledge of the wavelength/frequency of light [notwithstanding 'photons']. We completely understand/comprehend colours at a very early age, if not immediately, devoid of any scientific/technical knowledge/data.

What interests me is that neuroscience wants to account for our experiences in scientific terms, yet the brain itself apparently knows nothing about this information, judging by our [conscious] inability to explain wavelengths etc., as babes.

A child can have a complete understanding of colours yet be a retard when it comes to science. So what a child (or even an adult) 'sees' is not distinctions between the wavelengths etc. of photons. That's a fact, otherwise the brain would know this as THIS is what the materialist/physicalist insists what 'colour' amounts to!!!!!!!!!

How can 'we', being a phenomenon of the brain, be unable to acount for colour in terms of wavelength etc. [until we go to Harvard/Oxford, etc. and learn about such things] when the brain itself is providing colour experiences to itself grounded upon its understanding of photons/wavelengths etc.?

You can have no riposte to these questions, other than one grounded in the fact that the brain does not know what it's doing. Which, given that its "conscious child" does, raises further [significant] questions.

You may well have "thought carefully" about such matters, but it is obvious to me that you have never understood the depth to which these matters go.