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