[ExI] Mental Phenomena

[Brent Allsop]

If you surgically remove your eyes, and are put into a room with no light,
then stimulate the optic nerve, identical to the way it would be when
looking at a strawberry.   You would have identical knowledge of the
strawberry.  What is that knowledge, and what is it that has the redness
quality you experience?  This can’t be ‘perception’ as that requires eyes.
It is simply conscious knowledge, the result of perception.

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 12:19 PM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> On 07/01/2020 04:09, Brent Allsop <brent.allsop at gmail.com>
> <brent.allsop at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> There are two ways of knowing things.  First is objective perception of
> color and such.  In this view there is the target of perception (like the
> sugar content or ripeness of a strawberry) there is the very different
> physics our senses detect as they represent that, and finally there is our
> knowledge of such.  All of these obviously different physical things.
>
>
>
> You don’t perceive colorness properties, you are directly aware of them,
> in computationally bound register pixels of our conscious CPU.  These are
> the final result of perception.
>
>
>
> The first method is abstract (requires correct interpretation of whatever
> physics is landing on our senses), and therefor can be mistaken.  As in the
> case when something “seems” different than it really is.
>
>
>
> Colorness is a physical property that just is and can’t be mistaken.  It
> is the mistaken seeming knowledge that may be incorrectly representing its
> referent.
>
>
>
> It is a necessary truth, that if you consciously know something, there
> must be something that is that knowledge, and it must be computationally
> bound into your awareness.
>
>
>
> We have knowledge of spirits, in our diorama of knowledge (represented as
> if existing behind and looking out of our knowledge of our eyes.)  While
> most of our visual knowledge has a referent in reality, our knowledge of
> our spirit does not.
>
>
>
> The funny thing about people that believe in Ghosts, is that even a ghost,
> like a “homunculus in a cartesian theater.”  if they are “self-aware” there
> necessarily must be some subset of that ghost that is its knowledge of
> self.  Which of course is kind of absurd.
>
>
> Sorry, I have absolutely no idea what you're saying. Many of your
> sentences don't even make grammatical sense, and I can't get any meaning
> from them at all. e.g. "You don’t perceive colorness properties, you are
> directly aware of them". You seem to be saying that awareness of colour
> and perception of colour are different things. I don't know about you, but
> I can't be aware of something that I haven't perceived, and I can't
> perceive something without being aware of it. The two words effectively
> mean the same thing.
>
> --
> Ben Zaiboc
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20200107/c5489fa6/attachment.htm>