brent.allsop at canonizer.com
Sat Feb 28 21:18:15 UTC 2015
Very good point, I guess I was going way to far and burning down way to
many very important trees. Thanks for point out the obvious to me, this
is very valuable information.
The naive popular view, is that color is a property of the initial
causes of the perception process, and at least one critically important
part of these currently popular meme, is that this is educating people
about the fallacy in that view.
Diversity of qualia or Inverted qualia is another important concept this
illustrates, although in the strictest sense, this is a very complicated
inverted qualia example.
All I was trying to say, was if you want to bridge the "Explanitory
Gap", and point out that there is no "hard problem" the easiest way to
do it, is to avoid things like this and to instead, focus on the two
simplest and most obviously qualitatively different qualities, like
simple redness and greeness. And then show how you can detect and see
those and their differences. You need to show how you can see these
colors in improperly interpreted 'grey matter' of the brain.(Note "grey"
is a miss interpretation of the true color.) Once you bridge this
explanatory gap with such an obvious simple example, all other
qualitative so called "problems" of what other brain are "like" can be
shown to be more complex variations on that simple and obvious
qualitative theory of consciousness.
On 2/27/2015 6:17 AM, Mike Dougherty wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Brent Allsop
> <brent.allsop at canonizer.com> wrote:
>> In my opinion, this kind of stuff just confuses people, and leads them away
>> from what is important.
> So you would walk away from this phenomenon as "unimportant" and go
> back to 'effing zombie red' ?
>> What is important is a simple elemental redness, and a simple elemental
>> greyness, and the qualitative difference between them, and that fact the
>> zombie physics has no account for that.
> Seems you'd be willing to burn down the rest of the forest so everyone
> could appreciate your one tree.
>> What is that difference, when is someone else experiencing the same, or
>> inverted, and what are the neural correlates of that obvious difference,
>> i.e. how do you detect it one vs the other.
> This is an instance where 75% of those polled are "experiencing" a
> white+gold dress while the other 25% are "experiencing" blue+black.
> Everyday people are reposting this image and asking "Why?" A massive
> audience has just turned their surety of color awareness into a moment
> of unknown. All these people are saying "I see X, what do you see?"
> and they are questioning their assumption that everyone else
> experiences the same phenomenal reality.
> I assumed it was hoax. (it's not exactly a hoax) "Rick-rolling" was a
> popular prank that no single individual could have propagated to the
> frequency that it was happening, but it happened. Somebody discovered
> a phase transition point in color perception, then used it to create a
> very strong replicating meme. Even if this group has discussed it all
> before, this network effect of the Internet [social media(s)] to
> spread memes is fascinating. I hope that's not lost simply because
> "memes" were discussed in the early 1990's so it's already been done.
> So even if we don't discuss fashion chromatics, there is plenty of
> meta-discussion about the impact of this image on "proles" who also
> rarely think on the subject.
> *shrug* but maybe not.
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
More information about the extropy-chat