[extropy-chat] Neurochemistry and perception

[Dirk Bruere]

Adrian Tymes wrote:

>>And when the neurochem behind love, hate,
>>creativity, flashes of 
>>insight, the colour red etc has been discovered we
>>can consign all of 
>>those to the rubbish bin as well.
>>    
>>
>
>*snicker*  Not.
>
>Just because we understand the basis for something
>does not in itself make it less real.  Mirages, yes,
>okay, those aren't real - though note that they never
>  
>
Actually, they often are - they are images of something real elsewhere.

>were, and we're just finding out about it.  But love?
>No, that exists, and it would continue to exist even
>  
>
Does it? prove it!

>if we could perfectly artificially synthesize it.  (I
>further suspect, from what I know of it, that the
>"synthesis" would turn out to be merely a way of
>inducing the real thing.)
>
>  
>
So what's the 'real thing'?

>The color red makes an even better example: we *do*
>know the neurochemistry behind the perception of the
>color red (although we don't quite know what all
>people do with it internally).  We know the biophysics
>as well.  We can and do cause the perception of "red",
>by creating things that are percieved that way or
>changing lighting conditions to induce that
>perception, all the time.  (Ask any theatrical
>lighting expert about the color tones used to induce,
>say, a romantic tone around a character.)  We could
>even, if we wanted, stimulate specific neurons to
>create the perception of "red" where no red truly
>existed.  (Indeed some scientists are using a similar
>technique to create the perception of light in blind
>people - some of whom have never seen before.)  Yet
>despite our thorough understanding of it, "red"
>stubbornly continues to exist.
>
>  
>
Actually, you are making a common mistake.
You are talking about the mechanism for registering a certain wavelength 
of light.
How the qualia called 'red' arises is totally unknown.

>Spiritual experiences will continue to exist.  And
>note that people try desperately to attach some
>meaning to them - *therefore the meaning and the
>experience are not one and the same thing*.  The
>experiences themselves do not care what their cause
>is; they still happen.  It's part of the current human
>condition.
>  
>
The argument seems to be whether they are aberrant neurochem or properly 
working neurochem.
I say the latter.

-- 
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org