[ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found
brent.allsop at gmail.com
Sat Feb 22 00:05:46 UTC 2020
My simple claim is that we currently have a less than rigorous (Naive and
mistaken) epistemology of color.
I'm trying to point out the problems in that naive model, using easy,
simply, demonstrations of known facts about perception of color.
It's not complicated stuff. Nobody needs to provide any references to any
papers (whether philosophy 101 or more advanced), It's just simple solid
and rigorous thinking about colors of things.
We are creating a video <https://canonizer.com/videos/consciousness/>
to make these simple facts of color more clear.
The natural thing to do is to map what I am trying to say, (and everything
in this video) into your model. I completely agree that what you say is
true, given this naive model.
What is frustrating to me, is nobody attempts to understand my model, and
nobody is attempting to understand what I'm trying to say.
You guys just continue to take what I'm saying, using the same mistaken
epistemology (such as the strawberry just 'seems' green) you've used your
entire life about what color something is.
I bet if You, Stathis, John, and everyone, would make an attempt to
understand, and prove you understand my model by repeating it back to me
(the way I am doing with your models), things would make a lot more sense
to all of you.
Once you understand it, maybe you'll find faults with it. That wold be
great. But at least make an attempt to understand a different model of
what color something is, and try thinking from within that model.
Don't just continue to ignore the fact that I"m trying to describe a
different model, and map my words into your model, in which of course they
are going to be incorrect ir just nonsense.
On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 4:34 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> Some of the things I post are just opinions, but opinions based on a long
> history of reading psychology and the relevant research. Some are just
> opinions based on common sense or something. I suppose I could start
> citing research to validate my based opinions, but I just don't have time
> for it. Believe them or not. I certainly am not going to start arguing
> Psych 101 psychology with anyone.
> And I certainly do not want to patronize people who don't have the
> background and knowledge that I have. I would say that if you want to know
> something you could ask me, but this doesn't seem to be that kind of
> crowd. I am guilty of talking about some things that I have little
> knowledge of, but I am not the only one. And I enjoy being corrected.
> bill w
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 5:09 PM John Clark via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 5:08 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat <
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>> >“*As long as the 'behavior' remains the same the subjectivity must also
>>> remain the same.*”
>>> *This is false - clearly. *
>> It may indeed be false, but it isn't clearly false, it isn't even clear
>> that subjectivity exists except in me.
>>> > *The taste of something fades as you eat more and more of it. *
>> And that surmise about subjectivity is consistent with the observation
>> that people eventually stop eating, but does not prove it.
>> John K Clark
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat