Brent, My wife is a professional painter. I know it for sure that she sees certain colours differently or I see them differently. We have had situations, where we are holding two colour papers which I feel are same she says are different. Another example - when I learnt Russian after close to four native languages (Punjabi, Hindi, English, Urdu) I could still not make the difference between two close Russian sounds 'sh' & 'sch' with former spoken with plainer tongue, latter being with a trough in tongue. Reason - brain works heuristically - dishes out the closest available 'known option' to perception. This does not mean one can't train oneself. ALCCO approach needs to be studied for a valid critique, making express conclusions is unjust. TY DL On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 08:02 Brent Allsop, <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > 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=DwMFaQ&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 > ############################ 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