[ExI] consciousness and perception

[John K Clark]

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

> something about atoms also has phenomenal qualities like red,
> green, the taste of salt....  Very different than behavioral properties.

Let's see, when an atom of chlorine is with a sodium atom it has the
phenomenal quality of being salty, but when it is alone it has the
phenomenal qualities of stinky and pain. An atom of carbon in a diamond has
the phenomenal quality of hardness, but when it is in graphite it changes to
softness.

Almost certainly right now in my brain there is an atom of carbon that was
once in your brain; so it once had the  brentallsopian  phenomenal property
but now that same atom has the  johnkclarkian phenomenal property. So an
atom's phenomenal properties depend on it's relationship with other nearby
atoms, which is exactly equivalent to saying that such properties don't
exist; much better to just concentrate on the relationship of those atoms;
your mumbo jumbo brings nothing to the table.

> cause and effect abstracting observation is blind to such phenomenal
> properties

If it's blind to cause and effect then it's not science, it's not even good
philosophy because you can't do anything with it, the thing doesn't lead
anywhere; and the reason for that is that it has no effect.

> we do agree that perception is representational

I certainly agree with that, but apparently you don't. You say there must be
"something" in the matter that makes up a strawberry that has the red
phenomenal quality. If true then the 700nm electromagnetic photons reflected
off it must have that quality too; after all light is the only way we know
it is red; so if atoms have this very interesting property then photons of
light must have it too. So it you're right there is nothing representational
about it, you are seeing the thing itself. If you're right then a 700nm
photon of light really is the subjective experience of red.

And that is ridicules!

   John K Clark