[extropy-chat] Re: Qualia Bet

[Marc Geddes]

On 12/30/05, gts <gts_2000 at yahoo.com> wrote:


>I could say "No offense, but your idea of '7-aspect neutral monism' is
>about the most convoluted idea I've ever heard of." (but I won't) :-)

But you *did* just say it.  And of course you could well be right.  I
doubt it though ;)


>
> Have you considered this view?...
>
> "Clark & Chalmers (1998) even go so far to speak about an "extended mind",
> the boundaries of the self, as a cognitive system, extending beyond the
> skull and the skin to encompass the things with which we interact. Taking
> this literally, it would even make sense to say that color experiences
> exist in the mind after all, but as qualities of the surfaces of the
> objects around us, rather than as mysterious qualia inside the brain."
>
> Colors may then be in the mind *and* primary qualities of objects.
>
> The problem of qualia would then be with our common-sense concept of mind,
> not of color. We tend to think our minds are trapped in our skulls, but
> why?
>
> While the idea of extended mind may seem strange, it resolves the problem
> quite nicely I think: children and pre-scientific man and common sense are
> correct; things really do have color qualities. Color need not be pigments
> of our imagination or mysterious platonic math-like entities from the
> "multi-dimensional time" that you postulate.
>
> Chalmers and Clark make this very interesting point:
>
> "By embracing an active externalism, we allow a more natural explanation
> of all sorts of actions. One can explain my choice of words in Scrabble,
> for example, as the outcome of an extended cognitive process involving the
> rearrangement of tiles on my tray. Of course, one could always try to
> explain my action in terms of internal processes and a long series of
> "inputs" and "actions", but this explanation would be needless[ly]
> complex. If an isomorphic process were going on in the head, we would feel
> no urge to characterize it in this cumbersome way. In a very real sense,
> the re-arrangement of tiles on the tray is not part of action; it is part
> of thought."
>
> http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/courses/concepts/clark.html
>
> If your rearranging tiles on a scrabble tray is a part of your thought
> then your mind is not trapped in your skull. When you watch yourself
> rearranging scrabble tiles, you are watching your mind think.
>

I've considered the view and I have no idea what the heck Chalmers and
Clark are on about there.  As I pointed out, we know how the visual
system works and things are definitely represented in the brain:

Here's a summary of the visual pathways in the brain:
http://thalamus.wustl.edu/course/cenvis.html

And a schematic of color vision concepts:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/colviscon.html#c1

To summarize what I've been saying again:  The colors we see are
caused by the machinary in the cones.  And these are simply a product
of random evolutionary processes.  Different observers with brains
wired differently would see different colors.  So there's no way to
pick out some particular observer's perception as being objectively
correct.  Worse we know that perception is in part caused by an
interaction between current experience and past memories - so again -
different observers with different memories will see slightly
different things.  Finally, as I think Stuart neatly pointed out, if
the lightening in the environment is different you'll see different
colors - wait for night fall tonight and simply turn your lights on
and off and hey pesto... everything will seem to have different
colors.  So again, absolutely no way to pick out some color as being
'objectively correct'.

Since we know how the visual systems works and we know things are
definitely represented in there, there's no need for the nebulous
concepts of Chalmers and Clark.  One could imagine a 'virtual reality'
system which gives you color perception directly by simulating your
brain, which shows that no external objects are required.



--
"Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the shadow with teeth
bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in
Sightblinder's eye on the last day"