TOK-SOCIETY-L Archives

September 2020

TOK-SOCIETY-L@LISTSERV.JMU.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 17 Sep 2020 20:32:12 -0600
Content-Type:
multipart/alternative
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (2146 bytes) , text/html (3391 bytes)
Hi Deepak,

On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 1:35 PM Deepak Loomba <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> As I described in my book 'Awareness and Consciousness - Discovery,
> Distinction and Evolution - The New Upanishad', a Dr. in UK has after 3
> decades of investigation discovered a tetrachromat woman
>
Exactly.  A tetrachromat (represents color with 4 primary colors) is the
opposite of (one more rather than rather than one less than a normal
trichromat) a red/green color blind person (represent the same colors with
2 primary colors), more proof of diversity of qualia.


> Evidently, the redness (detail) that she *sees *is very different from
> the redness most of us see.
>
> Hope I clarified.
>

OK, great, yes.  You are showing that your theory is not qualia blind, and
that you can model diversity of qualia.  So that would mean that your
theory belongs as a supporting sub camp to "Representational QUalia Theory
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_88-2DRepresentational-2DQualia_6&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=eJFECDiv-qf6152Wck8pESoh8jBMboBhYI4SE2a4ob4&s=3CBzoZJ_UvPNm1VVj-MYajXAP5yLN0CCA8cnrE0vjkI&e= >" since your
theory is consistent with the general ideas described in that camp.

However, we may have a problem with saying anyone '*sees*' redness.
Because seeing, and all kinds of perception are different
than direct apprehension.  Perception and seeing are
necessarily substrate independent, and require correct interpretation, or
can be mistaken, because they are done from afar, across a chain of
multiple different sets of intrinsic properties.  Redness is an intrinsic
property we directly apprehend, so does not require a dictionary and
our knowledge of it cannot be mistaken, it just is.

But I'm still not fully grasping what it is you are predicting redness
might be.  Can you provide any insight into that?

Brent

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1


ATOM RSS1 RSS2