[extropy-chat] Re: Qualia Bet

[gts]

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 22:46:38 -0500, Marc Geddes <marc.geddes at gmail.com>  
wrote:

> There are animals with more than three cones in their visual system (for
> instance some birds have four cones).  These animals would see the  
> tomato as a different shading from us.  Who is seeing the *correct*  
> color?

It it is my job here to defend the idea of extended mind then I think the  
definition of "correct color", (i.e, objective color), is yours. It is you  
who implies colors are objective like platonic  numbers.

> Imagine a room-full of mad-men and they're all hallucinating
> different colors O.K ;)  So, where do all these different color  
> perceptions exist?

In their brains, of course. The brain would be among the physical objects  
that the mind comprehends. You  see a real object in your field of vision,  
not much different from the way the madman sees an object in his  
imagination.

> Since they can't be seeing the right color, the color perceptions
> must be in their heads.  But in that case, why bother with all this talk  
> of 'extended minds' and 'primary color properties'?

Because it might resolve the question of how qualia are perceived without  
the "from mind" or "from matter" paradox.

> I just pointed out that animals with four cones in their
> visual system see a different shade of color for the tomato.  Is the
> animal's perception a hullucination?

No, I would say.

> Hopefully you can see that the talk of
> 'extended minds' and '' is entirely superfluous.

I don't think so.

It may be true that objects have many primary color qualities, and that  
the qualities perceived are dependent on the animal that perceives them.

Or it may be true that the idea of primary color properties is altogether  
mistaken.

-gts