proto-consciousness field theory

[JoeMorgue]

My problem with the consciousness field is that it does not actually explain anything.

My entire problem with consciousness is that it doesn't explain anything.

It's a Woo Word that is basically a God of the Gaps. It's essentially defined as "Any part of human mental processing that science can't explain to me to my satisfaction in a way I'll accept."

 

[Dancing David]

My entire problem with consciousness is that it doesn't explain anything.

It's a Woo Word that is basically a God of the Gaps. It's essentially defined as "Any part of human mental processing that science can't explain to me to my satisfaction in a way I'll accept."

Consciousness and perception have nice definitions in biology, neurology and psychology.

However as used by some people in this thread you are totally correct!

 

[carlosy]

Except that colour does exist, no matter how you choose to define it.

Depends on what you mean by "exist".

Color is just a subjectively experienced value attributed to specific wavelength. Color does not exist, when no species in the universe has a receiver and a processor to process incoming wavelength. Color exists subjectively.

But wavelength does exist, even without any species at all.

The universe works perfectly fine without color. But it won't without wavelength.

 

[Belz...]

Depends on what you mean by "exist".

Color is just a subjectively experienced value attributed to specific wavelength. Color does not exist, when no species in the universe has a receiver and a processor to process incoming wavelength. Color exists subjectively.

But wavelength does exist, even without any species at all.

The universe works perfectly fine without color. But it won't without wavelength.

Please don't start that. They are one and the same. Pretending that they're not is just adding some ghostly quality of colour that isn't in the material world.

 

[Myriad]

Please don't start that. They are one and the same. Pretending that they're not is just adding some ghostly quality of colour that isn't in the material world.

If wavelength and color are one and the same, which wavelength is pink?

 

[Belz...]

If wavelength and color are one and the same, which wavelength is pink?

A tacky wavelength.

Are we really going to nitpick this? The point is that the entire process is physical and mundane, and the words we use to represent various parts of this process don't change that nature.

 

[carlosy]

Color is just a subjective attribute, really, nothing more, nothing less.

Color is not objective, because different species may see specific wavelength completely differently. You can't even proove that all humans experience/see the same thing when we agree to a specific color (react to a specific wavelength).

Wasn't there a whole book about the idea of inverted color sprectrum experience between individual humans?

If no one can see the moon, it still exists. Because its physical attributes still have impact on the environment - mass, gravity, em-radiation etc.
Species without eyes would still be able to determine its objective physical values. But color would be meaningless, or better said - nonexistent.

Color to wavelength is the same as if we would name words to specific weights. Like 10 kg = Zack and 20 kg = Zick, if we would have an organ that could receive a very specific spectrum of gravity and our brains would be able to process this information into a specific subjective experience.

 

[Belz...]

Color is just a subjective attribute, really, nothing more, nothing less.

Then what is it made of, or how does it work?

No, colour is a real thing, even if it's only a brain process.

 

[Toontown]

Well, I hope you can, because imagining a field in which random patterns appear deterministically would cause issues with me!

I have no issue with that. If it is a certainty that some unpredictable random pattern will appear, then the inevitable random pattern appears deterministically.

 

[Belz...]

I have no issue with that. If it is a certainty that some unpredictable random pattern will appear, then the inevitable random pattern appears deterministically.

Or, you could say that, if you look at enough random stuff, it averages out and becomes quite predictable, in the long run.

 

[carlosy]

Ok, next try:

What is the taste of saltiness made of?
One can define and measure salt. But the subjective experience of eating salt is - subjective.

Taste, color, sound is subjective.

What is acerb made of?
What is an A-sharp made of?
What is color made of?

The experience is real, but still subjective. If the subject dies, the experience is gone.

Acerb, A-sharp, colors... it all depends on the subject.
But molecules defining salt, vibrating air and wavelength will persist, even without any subjects.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Please don't start that. They are one and the same. Pretending that they're not is just adding some ghostly quality of colour that isn't in the material world.

"Sure it's in 625–740 nm wavelength... but it doesn't have the soul of red. It's red... but not qualia red."

 

[JoeMorgue]

Ok, next try:

What is the taste of saltiness made of?
One can define and measure salt. But the subjective experience of eating salt is - subjective.

Taste, color, sound is subjective.

What is acerb made of?
What is an A-sharp made of?
What is color made of?

The experience is real, but still subjective. If the subject dies, the experience is gone.

Acerb, A-sharp, colors... it all depends on the subject.
But molecules defining salt, vibrating air and wavelength will persist, even without any subjects.

Right. Obviously salt has a soul that science just can't account for.

 

[Belz...]

Ok, next try:

What is the taste of saltiness made of?
One can define and measure salt. But the subjective experience of eating salt is - subjective.

Taste, color, sound is subjective.

But what does that even mean? "Subjective" doesn't remove experience outside of reality. It just means that it depends on the observer.

When light of a certain wavelength hits your retina it causes a reaction in your eye, optic nerve and brain, and we call that red. There's no reason to detach "redness" from the rest of the process.

 

[Myriad]

A tacky wavelength.

Are we really going to nitpick this? The point is that the entire process is physical and mundane, and the words we use to represent various parts of this process don't change that nature.

The words we use are models of that nature. Different words can represent different models, and no model is necessarily (nor needs to be) the true nature pf the thing it models.

Wavelength/frequency is a one-dimensional model, referring to points on the spectrum of pure hues. But those colors are only seen from certain sources that produce single photons or monochromatic light. As you no doubt already know, but didn't want to directly acknowledge, pink is not any wavelength.

Visible light can in principle have any mixture of photons of different frequencies. If we want to characterize a specific unique color, then, it might seem we would need a very large number of data points, amounting to the information in a complete intensity spectrum across the visible range of frequencies.

But in fact, most of our useful color models have not one, and not a huge number, but three dimensions. That's indirectly related, in a somewhat complex way, to the physiological mechanisms of how we sense color. Those mechanisms are objectively real, so we have a good basis to believe the resulting subjective experience of color matches three-dimensional color models for people who have normally functioning color vision. A specific experienced shade of pink is neither a specific frequency, nor a specific spectrum, but a point in an abstract model. Pink isn't physical; it's computational.

And color gets more complicated still. Contextual subjective color perception veers very far away from wavelengths. If frequency or even a specific mix of frequency relates directly to the experience of color, what's going on here?

Many art students take at least a full semester course in color theory, exploring color models and their applications in art and design. The color frequency spectrum of light will usually be covered in the first lecture, and the rest of the course builds from there.

Saying color is the same thing as frequency is like saying language is the same thing as the letters of the alphabet. It's not nitpicking to point out otherwise.

 

[Dancing David]

Color is just a subjective attribute, really, nothing more, nothing less.

Color is a perception created in the visual cortex follow sensation

 

[Dancing David]

One can define and measure salt. But the subjective experience of eating salt is - subjective.

Taste, color, sound is subjective.

Three different perceptions created following three separate sensations

 

[Minoosh]

Three different perceptions created following three separate sensations

I would think a taste for salt be would be basically hardwired. Animals seek it out if given a ready source (salt licks). It makes sense to me that we would be programmed to seek electrolytic balance. We might experience it as a craving for salt, as other animals do, apparently. We experience it as "taste," a case where our sensory input dovetails with a more basic chemical need.

I'm interested in how we overlap with "other" animals, seeing as how we are animals ourselves.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

And color gets more complicated still. Contextual subjective color perception veers very far away from wavelengths. If frequency or even a specific mix of frequency relates directly to the experience of color, what's going on here?

You can even use "colour fatigue" to see "impossible colours" by staring at one particular colour for a long period of time and then suddenly looking at something else. You can see hyperbolic colours with more than 100% saturation, stygian colours which are simultaneously coloured and black, and self-luminous colours which are simultaneously coloured and brighter than white.

There have even been experiments with showing different colours to different eyes simultaneously (or two colours to a single eye) where people have been able to see colours that don't exist in the colourspace, such as a yellowy-blue (not green) and a greeny-red (not yellow).

 

[Belz...]

It's not nitpicking to point out otherwise.

I appreciate your effort, but yes it is, unless one is using words in a deliberately obfuscating way. We all know what we mean when we use the word "colour".

...wow, that was a lot of 'w's in one sentence.

...anyway, we all know what it means, and we also know of attempts to make it sounds more... qualia-ish.