On Consciousness

[Dancing David]

I will state that I think consciousness is just a rubric for a variety of separate processes.

 

[Belz...]

I still have no idea why you keep insisting that there is more to colours than a complex data structure. I think that the problem lies in the word 'experience' that seems to be a mystery to you, while for me it just means the process of storing input into the data structures, or it could mean just the structures themselves.

Well, self-criticism is the hardest part of skepticism, so it follows that one's axioms about one's own mind, the very thing that allows one to think, will be extremely hard to jettisson.

So the feeling of colour and all that is something that seems so innate that it's hard to even put it into question.

 

[Piggy]

I still have no idea why you keep insisting that there is more to colours than a complex data structure. I think that the problem lies in the word 'experience' that seems to be a mystery to you, while for me it just means the process of storing input into the data structures, or it could mean just the structures themselves.

Please explain how a "data structure" is an experience.

As you do so, you'll have to explain why some data structures yield experience and others don't.

 

[Belz...]

Please explain how a "data structure" is an experience.

Please explain how "atoms" can be a coffee maker.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

But that doesn't explain why our brains produce a "redness" in our minds. Your claim is: if you knew enough about two different brains, you would know exactly how each mind perceives red. That doesn't seem true to me. I don't know what red appears like to you. That information seems inaccessible to an outside mind. Perhaps your "red" would appear "blue" to me. A behavioralist would say it doesn't matter how it appears to us, is our behavior consistent? Yes, you stop at "red" lights the same as I do, even if the mental state "red" is completely different for each of us.

To make a long story short, I'm not convinced mental states are the equivalent of (or reducible to) brain states. When I was in college there was a debate over whether mental states could be reduced to physical brain states. I don't know if there still is or if there's a debate in the hard sciences too.

That's the debate we're having here. Piggy is saying that mental states can't be reduced to brain states, we're asking "well what's causing them then?" with a few meaningful glances over at the corner of the internet library where the dualism and new age drek is shelved, and he's changing the subject by going off on long-winded rants with loaded question-begging terminology and tornado analogies.

To answer your question, the process I described is seeing "redness." That's it. That's what happens. Depending on how you phrase the problem of my red being your blue, the answer to that is either "no" or "that makes no sense, but probably not?"

Colors are initially determined by varying populations of photoreceptors, which are in turn defined by the colors which inactivate them. My red photoreceptors work the same as your red photoreceptors, otherwise they wouldn't be red photoreceptors, so... no. They're not interchangeable.

That said, it's pretty easy to trick sensation - that's all that optical illusions really do, after all. There's that berry with the protein that binds to your sweet taste buds to make them pH sensitive. Or, in a pinch, turn all the lights off and wait for your eyes to adjust to the gloom, and for everything to lose all color. Don't you feel a soul-wrenching uncertainty about the true nature of things, as your qualia quail in contradiction to what you understand the underlying reality to be? Didn't think so.

But the question isn't usually about that, is it? It's generally about internal representation, how does it feel to really experience red, not just sensation, crap like that. Well, in terms of internal representation, your red isn't even my red, it would be fͤͭ̀̂̀̒̂҉̝̗͈̭̖̻͕̯͢͡nͪ̋̀҉̰͇͉̱̗̩o̼̤̱͚̹̠̬̯͑͌ͭ̂ͫͭ̈̚͢ͅr̴̷̛͓͙̦̲̰̃͐ͣͦ̆d̥̱̪̜̦͈͆̀ to me, and vice versa. Just so much noise. Brains are stochastically grown objects with no microstructural pattern necessary or expected between individuals. Brains have a lot of similarities in their gross anatomy, just as cities all look the same from a plane, but you wouldn't argue that we can superimpose Paris's street map onto London and get anything but nonsense. Your "red" is a specific network of connections built to discern a change expressed by your specific pattern of photoreceptors.* My "red" is specific to mine.


*They're technically multiple interrelated networks of connections each meant to find patterns in each other, the principal input of which is your specific pattern of photoreceptors, all weaved into and between other networks of connections, but that's just needless complication for the discussion at hand.

Stop it with the magic bean junk. Really, it's juvenile.

But here you have not described the production of red. And the language centers are irrelevant.

At what point is red produced in this chain reaction?

The way you're using the term? Never.

ETA2: So we don't waste time... keep this key question in mind as you trace the neurology -- What keeps the baby from seeing green instead?

The ratio between the baby's red and green photoreceptors.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

With respect to consciousness, it's as if we were asking about the northern lights in the 1400s before anyone had any idea about solar emissions and the earth's magnetic field.

Provided the northern lights were invisible, and everyone who said they existed pointed in a different direction saying, "they're right there, isn't it obvious?"

 

[Piggy]

The ratio between the baby's red and green photoreceptors.

There are no such things, because red and green do not exist out in the world to be received. Red and green are products of brain activity.

Now answer my question.

Light hits the baby's eyes. Why does she experience red instead of green?

ETA: Let me clarify… there are receptors which we call red and green receptors, but only because of what the brain does with the impulses afterward. Those labels do not mean that red and green exist out in the world. If we look at the actual physics there's no red or green to be discerned in the light that hits the eye. There's only a difference in frequency and wavelength. So falling back on labels won't get it here.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

There are no such things, because red and green do not exist out in the world to be received. Red and green are products of brain activity.

Now answer my question.

Light hits the baby's eyes. Why does she experience red instead of green?

ETA: Let me clarify… there are receptors which we call red and green receptors, but only because of what the brain does with the impulses afterward. Those labels do not mean that red and green exist out in the world. If we look at the actual physics there's no red or green to be discerned in the light that hits the eye. There's only a difference in frequency and wavelength. So falling back on labels won't get it here.

The ratio between the baby's OPN1LW-expressing and OPN1MW-expressing photoreceptors.

 

[Piggy]

The ratio between the baby's OPN1LW-expressing and OPN1MW-expressing photoreceptors.

What does that have to do with red and green?

Why is red associated with one, and green with another?

Why isn't it the other way around?

Why aren't those receptors instead associated with the smell of cinnamon and the taste of lemons… or no phenomenology at all?

ETA: We've come here to dance… let's dance. You tell me what those photoreceptors distinguish between, in terms of physics.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

What does that have to do with red and green?

That is red and green. The only thing the rest of the brain sees is one set of photoreceptors firing slightly faster than another when you look at a stop sign, and slightly slower when you look at a frog.

ETA: We've come here to dance… let's dance. You tell me what those photoreceptors distinguish between, in terms of physics.

Photon wavelength. Or energy, really. It's amazing how finely we can separate the colors given the overlap of their absorption spectra.

 

[Piggy]

That is red and green. The only thing the rest of the brain sees is one set of photoreceptors firing when you look at a stop sign, and another set firing when you look at a frog.

Nope.

All that can happen without the body producing red or green.

You're trying to get something for nothing.

Let's get back to the physics.

What's happening with the photoreceptors? What do they differentiate between?

And answer my question about the baby.

That baby has no associations to make, either with prior experience or with linguistic tags. Why does she see red and not green?

 

[Piggy]

Photon wavelength. Or energy, really. It's amazing how finely we can separate the colors given the overlap of their absorption spectra.

Excellent.

And as we've established, different brains can produce different responses to those wavelengths. The brain is not obliged to produce either red or green in response.

So let's keep going until we get to red or green.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

So let's keep going until we get to red or green.

We're already there. "Lol nope" gets you nowhere.

The retina, and later the brain, picks up that the difference between these populations reliably correlates with visual objects, and makes the associations from there. If we don't have two separate populations, say we're red-green colorblind, those associations never form. If we jam in an extra population of photoreceptors somehow, the opposite happens.

As for the baby, it's in the process of forming those associations as described above. Don't ask me how is babby forms them, we don't have room for that.

 

[Piggy]

We're already there. "Lol nope" gets you nowhere.

The retina, and later the brain, picks up that the difference between these populations reliably correlates with visual objects, and makes the associations from there. If we don't have two separate populations, say we're red-green colorblind, those associations never form. If we jam in an extra population of photoreceptors somehow, the opposite happens.

As for the baby, it's in the process of forming those associations as described above. Don't ask me how is babby forms them, we don't have room for that.

You're jumping the gun.

What distinction is being made?

It's not between red and green.

So far, all that's being distinguished is wavelengths.

And I'm not asking you about any associations in the baby's mind.

The baby sees this rubber ball, and for the first time in its life, it sees red. There are no associations being made, because there are none to be made.

So back up, stop assuming your conclusions, and let's go back to the light going into the eye.

There's no red or green or any color yet, just differential neural behavior depending on wavelength. We're not even to the visual cortex yet.

Keep going. Let's trace this out and see when -- if ever -- we get to green or red.

What's next?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

What distinction is being made?

It's not between red and green.

So far, all that's being distinguished is wavelengths.

Yes. That's your red and green. Beyond this point it's just two populations of activity, which we learn to associate with other things that activate those populations and eventually with the words "red" and "green."

But you've said you're not interested in word or object associations, but red/green itself. Well, there you have it. They're transformed into neural ensembles in the cones. We're done.

 

[Piggy]

Yes. That's your red and green. Beyond this point it's just two populations of activity, which we learn to associate with other things that activate those populations and eventually with the words "red" and "green."

But you've said you're not interested in word or object associations, but red/green itself. Well, there you have it. They're transformed into neural ensembles in the cones. We're done.

No, we haven't hit red and green yet.

Indeed, we have two populations of activity, but no red and green yet, just different sets of neural activity in response to wavelengths of light.

And no, it has nothing to do with associations with any words, because none of the brains we're looking at have any linguistic ability.

So far, we simply have different neural patterns in response to wavelengths of light.

That's not red or green.

Let's keep going.

Or do you want to stop now?

I wouldn't blame you if you did.

ETA: We have two sets of responses. Why is one set associated with red, and the other set with green, and not the other way around? Or for that matter, why is either set associated with any phenomenology, rather than none at all?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

No, we haven't hit red and green yet.

Yes we have. If you mean something different (and I'm pretty sure you do), you need to be using different terms and defining them explicitly.

ETA: We have two sets of responses. Why is one set associated with red, and the other set with green, and not the other way around? Or for that matter, why is either set associated with any phenomenology, rather than none at all?

Do you mean "red" the color of light, or "red" the Piggy term? I'm assuming the latter, but you're going to have to define it explicitly. You've been begging the question all thread; I don't intend to humor you further.

 

[Piggy]

Yes we have. If you mean something different (and I'm pretty sure you do), you need to be using different terms and defining them explicitly.


Do you mean "red" the color of light, or "red" the Piggy term? I'm assuming the latter, but you're going to have to define it explicitly. You've been begging the question all thread; I don't intend to humor you further.

No, I mean "red" which you experience when a stoplight changes and you stop your car.

Don't bail out on me here.

Let's keep going.

If you drive a car, and you know when to stop and when to go, then you experience both red and green, and these are different experiences for you.

So let's go back to the case in point.

So far, we have a neural response from the eye based on wavelength, but no red yet, but neural activity.

Let's keep going and see if and when we get to red.

Or do you want to bail out now?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

No, I mean "red" which you experience when a stoplight changes and you stop your car.

Yeah, that's still at the photoreceptor. Red and green lights activate different patterns. That's where they separate. If you're interested in the behavior we could try walking through that, but the color itself? Photoreceptors.

Or do you want to bail out now?

You keep saying this. Are you looking for an excuse to quit while saving face? I've noticed you have a tendency to accuse people of whatever fallacy you're committing at the time, maybe you're just projecting?

 

[Pulvinar]

Yeah Beelzebuddy, don't hold out on us! How does it get from those photoreceptors to the little projector room?