[ExI] consciousness and perception

[John K Clark]

"Brent Allsop" <brent.allsop at comcast.net>

> it has completely blown me away how many alleged leading thinkers, people
> that are considered 'peers' for leading journals..., that aren't even
> aware of what a representational view of perception is.

Did you even consider that there may be a reason for that? Probable the
leading thinkers aren't paying much attention to the "representational view"
is that there is no "is" there, the idea is empty; it can suggest no new
experiments to perform nor can it give theoreticians any help. Nor is there
any way to prove it wrong so it's not science, it's not even philosophy,
it's blather.

I take that back, you did mention one experiment, from a 7 year old issue of
Wired, but I am not impressed and the reason I'm not impressed is that I
feel you need to play fair.

The following noise that I make with my mouth "A medium-size phosphene,
about 5 inches from my face" is NOT a medium-size phosphene, about 5 inches
from my face.

By the way how much progress has the representational view made in the last
7 years? Could that be another reason why the "leading thinkers" aren't very
interested?

You announce with great fanfare that electromagnetic radiation with a
wavelength of 700 nm is not identical to the sensation that we know of as
red. Well duh!

It's obvious to me that red is the way matter reacts when it is organized in
a johnkclarkian way, probably it is also the way matter reacts when it is
organized in a brentallsopian sort of way, but I'll never be certain of that
last point.

But you'll have none of that, you insist that there must be something more
to the sensation of red than what atoms do; and although you don't actually
tell us what that "something" could be there is only one thing it could be,
a soul. I don't find any great mystery in the fact that the "leading
thinkers" are reluctant to go back to the middle ages.

 John K Clark