Hi Deepak,

On Sun, Apr 4, 2021 at 11:34 PM Deepak Loomba <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links
> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
> safe.
> ------------------------------
> Check the comments below:
> <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 4:48 AM Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> To do that, all you need to do is think of two different qualia, and
>> perceiving a strawberry of only two colors.  Don’t worry about saturation,
>> history, language, or any of that other easy problem complexity stuff that
>> is taking one away from the core hard problem.  Once you can identify what
>> it is that has an intrinsic redness quality, and what has an intrinsic
>> greenness quality, in that simplified model of the world, then you can take
>> the same non qualia blind thinking into the real world, and start thinking
>> about all this other “easy” and complex stuff you are modeling.
>>
> *DL: Undeniably quantified-qualia (oxymoron) will be a major step in the
> right direction. But it is not the solution of the 'Hard Problem'.Because
> the 'Hard Problem' resides in the variation of other processes that are
> triggered by the quantified qualia action. Why the same redness is liked
> appreciated on a cloudy day, but not on a sunny day, why one loved a
> specific redness till 14 years of age and then hated it till 25 before
> again falling in love with it after 40.  Not to say about the reasons why
> one loves a specific quantified redness while one's spouse hates it. The
> experience that is connected to the initial visual knowledge processing is
> where the hard problem resides. Indeed, through lots of thinking what I
> realized is that the entire qualia problem has to be approached
> differently. Research has to be done on what & why certain things are liked
> by everyone, which might be a quicker way to discover & quantify
> subjectivity. But having said all the aforementioned, anyone trying to
> discover 'objectivity' in the process is walking to the north pole to
> discover the equator.*
>

So, when someone loves a particular redness, till they are 14, are you
saying that the redness quality, itself, has changed?  Or are you saying
that possibly an experience like just before he turned 14, he experienced a
loved one getting hit by a truck, resulting in red blood everywhere, so
now, when he experiences that same redness quality, all those memories tend
to be computationally bound, and THAT is why he is no longer loves that
particular redness?



> Our brain has a visual knowledge system, into which 3D colored knowledge
>> can be rendered.  Each voxel element of this knowledge can be thought of as
>> an intrinsically colored Lego block.
>>
> *DL: Agreed*
>
>>
>>
>> There are various ways of rendering these Lego blocks into this
>> knowledge.  When you dream of a strawberry, your subconscious is causing or
>> doing the rendering of the phenomenal knowledge of the strawberry.  When
>> you look at a strawberry, your perception system is rendering the same
>> knowledge of the strawberry, based on the stereoscopic data coming from the
>> eyes.
>>
> *DL: Agreed*
>
>>
>>
>> But imagining, can’t get knowledge rendered into this visual knowledge
>> system.  *Try as you might you can’t produce a redness quality, purely
>> from imagination (2) *when your eyes are closed.  When you imagine or
>> recall redness, from memory, something different, entirely, is bound into
>> your conscious knowledge.  There must be something that is this
>> recollection of redness, which can also be bound into conscious knowledge,
>> but it is much less phenomenal than redness, itself.
>>
> *(2) DL: Disagreed. Imagination does not limit to that which exists, and
> is not only a reconfiguration of the known. All imagination is cantilevers
> into the unknown, which are then proven correct or demolished. But the
> beauty of imagination is that it requires no causal link to existing
> knowledge. While examples are uncountable - let me give the one that
> concurs with the redness example you are quoting. A British scholar
> postulated the existence of tetrachromats (women, with four types of cones
> instead of three) which gives them the capability to see in 100 million
> shades instead of 1 million. It took 40 years, but such women are
> discovered. So their redness is completely different from all the rest of
> us. They see 99 million more colours! Our capability is 1% of their's to
> see colours & shades. Logical deductions, sometimes complete arbitrary
> objects, phenomena can be imagined which may or may not exist subsequently.
> But your idea that everything imagined is a mere reconfiguration of the
> which is known. Isn't really so.  *
>

All I am saying is that you can't produce an actual redness experience
(like when you look at a strawberry, or dream of redness) when your eyes
are closed, no matter how powerful your imagination.
Also, you seem to be saying that a normal trichromat can simply 'imagine'
the color the tetrachromat can experience (you say see, which is
completely ambiguous, and you don't 'see' when you are dreaming...), which
is most extreme from the colorness qualities he can experience, which is of
course isn't so, at all.

You can't imagine redness, with your eyes closed, and no matter what you
do, a trichromat can't 'imagine' a new color he has never experienced
before.




>

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

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