[extropy-chat] Re: Qualia Bet

[Brandon Reinhart]

Does adding an additional cone provide a wider range of color, or merely a
different range of color? Would transhuman artists potentially pursue eye
modification that added more cones to their eyes (plus appropriate brain
mods to process the extra "out of band" data)?

 

Brandon

 

  _____  

From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Marc Geddes
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 9:47 PM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Re: Qualia Bet

 

 

On 12/30/05, gts <gts_2000 at yahoo.com> wrote: 



So tomatoes in the dark are grey, just as common-sense was informing us
all along.

 

There are animals with more than three cones in their visual system (for
instance some birds have four cones).  These animals would see the tomato as
a different shading from us.  Who is seeing the *correct* color?   Both
kinds of visual system are evolutionary accidents.  There appears to be no
way to pick one particular perception as 'right' and the other as a
'mis-perception'.  Speaking of mis-perceptions: what about the cases of
hullucination?  I know you did try to deal with this, but not successfully
in my view.  Imagine a room-full of mad-men and they're all hullucinating
different colors O.K ;)  So, where do all these different color perceptions
exist?  Since they can't be seeing the right color, the color perceptions
must be in their heads.  But in that case, why bother with all this talk of
'extended minds' and 'primary color properties'?  How is the case of
hullucinations of colors really any different from the case of
non-hullucinations - in terms of *subjective experience* at least, there is
no difference.  I just pointed out that animals with four cones in their
visual system see a different shade of color for the tomato.  Is the
animal's perception a hullucination?  If so, why is our perception of color
not a hullucination as well?  Hopefully you can see that the talk of
'extended minds' and 'primary color properties' is entirely superfluous. 

 

 

 



For your theory to seem consistent, I think you should say that colors are
properties of colored objects in the same way that platonic circularity is 
a property of circular objects.

-gts

 

 

Circular objects have the property known as a 'circular trope'.  This is a
*particular* concrete instance of circularity which is not in fact the same
as the platonic universal 'circularity'.

 

Further, the property of a 'green qualia trope' IS indeed possessed by
objects in my theory - this property is in the brain of the observer, not
the externally observed objects.


 




-- 
"Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the shadow with teeth bared,
screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder's eye on
the last day" 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060104/ed5bcd22/attachment.html>