<div dir="ltr"><br><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">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.</span></p></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 12:19 PM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div>On 07/01/2020 04:09, Brent Allsop
<a href="mailto:brent.allsop@gmail.com" target="_blank"><brent.allsop@gmail.com></a> wrote:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>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.</span></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>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. "<span>You don’t perceive colorness
properties, you are directly aware of them</span>". 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.<br>
</p>
<pre cols="72">--
Ben Zaiboc</pre>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
</blockquote></div>