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.

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" 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