[extropy-chat] Neurochemistry and perception

[Adrian Tymes]

--- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
> Adrian Tymes wrote:
> >Just because we understand the basis for something
> >does not in itself make it less real.  Mirages,
> yes,
> >okay, those aren't real - though note that they
> never
> >  
> Actually, they often are - they are images of
> something real elsewhere.

I meant as in they aren't what they appear to be.
Images of air, placed to suggest water.  One would see
the sky's image reflected off real water at sea.

> >were, and we're just finding out about it.  But
> love?
> >No, that exists, and it would continue to exist
> even
> >
> Does it? prove it!

Prove it doesn't.  You seem to be arguing from the
point of view that "love exists" is a more obviously
likely position.

> >if we could perfectly artificially synthesize it. 
> (I
> >further suspect, from what I know of it, that the
> >"synthesis" would turn out to be merely a way of
> >inducing the real thing.)
> >
> So what's the 'real thing'?

That which we can experience now, and other humans
have experienced.

> >The color red makes an even better example: we *do*
> >know the neurochemistry behind the perception of
> the
> >color red (although we don't quite know what all
> >people do with it internally).  We know the
> biophysics
> >as well.  We can and do cause the perception of
> "red",
> >by creating things that are percieved that way or
> >changing lighting conditions to induce that
> >perception, all the time.  (Ask any theatrical
> >lighting expert about the color tones used to
> induce,
> >say, a romantic tone around a character.)  We could
> >even, if we wanted, stimulate specific neurons to
> >create the perception of "red" where no red truly
> >existed.  (Indeed some scientists are using a
> similar
> >technique to create the perception of light in
> blind
> >people - some of whom have never seen before.)  Yet
> >despite our thorough understanding of it, "red"
> >stubbornly continues to exist.
> >
> Actually, you are making a common mistake.
> You are talking about the mechanism for registering
> a certain wavelength 
> of light.
> How the qualia called 'red' arises is totally
> unknown.

To my knowledge, "the qualia called 'red'" is,
inherently, the registration of a certain wavelength
of light, and things that result from that event.  Not
all of those extra things are known, yes - but the
registration is an essential, integral part of the
experience.

> >Spiritual experiences will continue to exist.  And
> >note that people try desperately to attach some
> >meaning to them - *therefore the meaning and the
> >experience are not one and the same thing*.  The
> >experiences themselves do not care what their cause
> >is; they still happen.  It's part of the current
> human
> >condition.
> >
> The argument seems to be whether they are aberrant
> neurochem or properly 
> working neurochem.
> I say the latter.

Actually, I'm not saying anything about aberrant vs.
properly working.  I'm just saying it *is* neurochem.