A question for scientists: Primary and Secondary qualities

[Loki]

Titus Rivas,

Furthermore, there are experiences such as NDEs that strongly suggest empirically we don't even need a working brain to see something.

Have you seen the Lord Of the Rings movie(s)? The sequence where Frodo puts on the ring as the ringwraiths approach him? The world viewed when wearing the ring is completely different to the world viewed without it - differen colors, different shapes, different perspectives. Why would the view of the world without the use of eye/brain be identical to the view supplied via those mechanisms?

When you're awake and looking around you, you can't see ultraviolet waves because the eye is physically not able to do so. Why would an NDE suffer the same restriction if it's not using the eye?

If you were 'color blind' (a limitation of the eye/brain) to red during normal everyday living, would you expect to be 'color blind' to red during an NDE? Can people who are blind from birth experience NDE's? Do they talk about "Wow...so that's what red looks like!"?

 

[Titus Rivas]

Visual qualia

Loki,

I wasn't saying the vision in cases such as that of NDE would be identical in every respect. I just said it is vision.

Have you seen the Lord Of the Rings movie(s)? The sequence where Frodo puts on the ring as the ringwraiths approach him? The world viewed when wearing the ring is completely different to the world viewed without it - differen colors, different shapes, different perspectives.

Yes, I've seen it, twice to be more precise, and I'm looking forward to the third part

When you're awake and looking around you, you can't see ultraviolet waves because the eye is physically not able to do so. Why would an NDE suffer the same restriction if it's not using the eye?

It probably won't.

If you were 'color blind' (a limitation of the eye/brain) to red during normal everyday living, would you expect to be 'color blind' to red during an NDE? Can people who are blind from birth experience NDE's? Do they talk about "Wow...so that's what red looks like!"?

Kenneth Ring has written a book on this specific topic, Mindsight .
In my view the qualitative part of the sensory modalities are part of the universal nature of mind. I mean that any individual mind has the potential of experiencing all types of qualia. Besides, if we take reincarnation and pre-existence seriously, even the congenitally blind will probably have had visual experiences before.

Best wishes,

Titus

 

[Titus Rivas]

Mercutio's frankness

Mercutio said:

NDE's strongly suggest something? Um...no. There are too many methodological flaws there to suggest anything at all, let alone suggest something strongly.

Well, that's a discussion in its own right

You are right, the qualia of vision are not intrinsically linked to any part of the physical visual system. They differ, in that the physical visual system exists.

I said before that I understood your position. I still do. I disagree with it strongly. I also recognise that I won't be changing your mind any time soon, as it is our very fundamental assumptions that differ. I just could not sit back without chiming in here. I am just glad that the sensation& perception researchers I work with don't share your philosophy. It would drive me stark raving bonkers.

Thanks for being so frank.

Best wishes,

Titus

 

[69dodge]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
What problems might these be? If you think that ghosts require photons in order to see then you must argue for this. I rather feel you'll find it rather difficult to conclude it's logically impossible to see without photons though! LOL But if you feel you can argue for this, then go ahead!

Can a ghost use a mirror to see behind himself? Can he use a magnifying glass or microscope to enlarge small objects? If he shines a flashlight (torch) on the wall, does he see a bright spot?

If he doesn't use photons to see, and I do use photons to see, why should he see the same things I see? Why should we refer to what he's doing as seeing? It's something entirely different.

 

[Mercutio]

Re: Mercutio's frankness

[B
Thanks for being so frank.

Best wishes,

Titus [/B]

Thanks for taking it so well. Only upon re-reading it do I realize how rude I was. I'd apologize in PM, but the affront was public, so my apology should be as well. Of course I disagree with you, but can and should do so civilly, as you have shown. I am sorry.

M

 

[Titus Rivas]

Mutual respect

Mercutio:

I am sorry.

That's the spirit.

Titus

 

[Interesting Ian]

Can a ghost use a mirror to see behind himself?

I would imagine a ghost would be able to see in all directions at once.

Can he use a magnifying glass or microscope to enlarge small objects?

No he wouldn't need to.

If he shines a flashlight (torch) on the wall, does he see a bright spot?

He wouldn't be able to pick one up.

If he doesn't use photons to see, and I do use photons to see, why should he see the same things I see?

Because we both see reality.

Why should we refer to what he's doing as seeing? It's something entirely different. [/B]

No they both see, but only the embodied person has vision.

 

[Dancing David]

ooh oooh, Ian that was just post 666, ooooooh oh.

 

[Interesting Ian]

ooh oooh, Ian that was just post 666, ooooooh oh.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Conservation of Energy

About this conservation of energy question, I'm still unclear why it's a problem. I presume the problem is due to us having libertarian free will, ie the world is not physically closed? So people seem to be saying that conservation of energy is necessarily violated unless change in the world follows physical laws at all times?

Well let's suppose I have a pebble in my hand and I release it. So it will start to fall down. But lets imagine that the pebble disobeys physical laws, and on its journey downwards it suddenly stops, and then rises slightly before proceeding to fall again.

Now here we have a clear violation of conservation of energy, all else being equal. So when we move our bodies in violation of physical laws, then conservation of energy is not being maintained. Is this what people are talking about??

You see the crucial point here is where I said all else being equal. The pebble doing what it did can easily be squared with conservation of energy by, for example, the pebble undergoing a slight reduction in weight ie part of its mass supplies the energy necessary to halt its descent and rise slightly.

Likewise in our case the energy for our voluntary movements has to come from somewhere, and this simply comes from the food we eat!

So I don't understand why libertarian free will, and remote viewing, or whatever else, violates conservation of energy. Can someone explain to me?? I genuinely don't understand.

 

[Dancing David]

HI Ian,

your post was reply number 666, so I just was being silly.

On conservation of energy, I think that the issue has to do with psychokinesis? I don't remember.

It's not about libertarian free will, when a sentient creature moves it's limbs the energy comes from somewhere, glucose and ATP or something like that. And you are quite right, the energy comes from food, and the theory of the conservation of energy says that the equation always balance and the sum of the energy in the system will be zero. And since sentient creatures burn feul to move, I don't know how libertarian free will violates the theory.
But a violation of the conservation of energy would be so cool, it would indicate whole new forces at work. Metaphysical or physical they would be way cool.

So someone doing as Neo does in the Matrix, and stopping bullets would be a violation of the conservation of energy, because he is stopping the motion of the bullets, and who knows where that energy comes from. A physicist would sure want to figure that one out, probably be enshrined in the Hall of Immortals.

 

[The One called Neo]

So someone doing as Neo does in the Matrix, and stopping bullets would be a violation of the conservation of energy, because he is stopping the motion of the bullets, and who knows where that energy comes from.

I drink Lucozade (an energy drink).

 

[Dancing David]

I drink Lucozade (an energy drink).

Dude! :wiggle hand in mystic surfer gesture:

 

[Loki]

Titus Rivas,

I wasn't saying the vision in cases such as that of NDE would be identical in every respect. I just said it is vision.

But why would it be even remotely similar? Why would it be "vision" at all, since "vision" (in humans) is entirely determined by eye limitations?

The visual spectrum of wavelengths is determined by the physical mechanism of the eye. Freed of the limitations of the eye, why wouldn't you "see" all wavelengths when looking around the operating theatre?

As Ian says, why would you even have a "direction" of vision? We see whichever way our eyes are facing - we can't see behind us without turning around. Freed from the limitations of a physical eye, why aren't NDEs "360 degree" vision? Why aren't they "fisheye lens" like? Panaramic vision?

We use two eyes to create 3D "depth" in our vision. Freed from the limitations of eyes, why aren't NDEs "distanceless" 2D views?

If I understand Ian even slightly (always possible I've got even this wrong) then our "sight" is a perception, a particular view of reality that is tailored to match the machine of the human eye. If the eye is removed from the equation, why does the consciousness continue to receive perceptions of reality based upon this limitation? If our consciousnesses can perceive reality in this way without this mechanism, then why have it in the first place? Why aren't all humans eyeless?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Loki (and others) have hit upon an interesting question. We've got this consciousness/beingness stuff floating around. Then we have evolution. What's the evolution for? Why even bother?

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

Loki (and others) have hit upon an interesting question. We've got this consciousness/beingness stuff floating around. Then we have evolution. What's the evolution for? Why even bother?

~~ Paul

Gee, who knows, although if a bit of beingness was looking for a "perceived structure" to animate, maybe complexity offers more "fun"? or better "learning opportunity"? or ???

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

But why would beingness form such restricted creatures as us? Why not let us fly, see everywhere, hear everything, move mountains? Is it some sort of test of frustration and annoyance?

~~ Paul

 

[Mercutio]

But why would beingness form such restricted creatures as us? Why not let us fly, see everywhere, hear everything, move mountains? Is it some sort of test of frustration and annoyance?

I know I'm frustrated...does that count as evidence?

 

[Dancing David]

Gee, who knows, although if a bit of beingness was looking for a "perceived structure" to animate, maybe complexity offers more "fun"? or better "learning opportunity"? or ???

Call me a size queen, but I think I would go for a star or something big, like that, isn't this where franko should step in.

Hamme, do idealists draw a line between life and non life? I know you ask that question a lot, but does idealism put a barrier on setience? Can 'mind' be in a rock, or does locomotion and perception create a more desirable enviornment for mind?

Certainly animism would say that all things are endowed with mind/spirit, although they may have a 'mind' very different in scale and proportion to other minds. Rocks I would imagine are very slow and concrete thinkers. While rivers would tend to follow the lowest common denominator.

 

[Titus Rivas]

Evolution

Paul said:

Loki (and others) have hit upon an interesting question. We've got this consciousness/beingness stuff floating around. Then we have evolution. What's the evolution for? Why even bother?

Evolution in the materialistic, (neo)darwinist sense, can have no real purpose whatsoever as you might know. Evolution in this sense is supposed to be only apparently teleological, in that the whole process would be explicable by physical, mindless causes and effects.
Apart from this physical or strictly biologica/physiologicall evolution, we can also imagine a mental evolution, which would be partially linked to physical evolution but would also introduce new teleological phenomena such as conscious purpose. In other words, it's only mental evolution which can give arbitrary biological evolution its meaning. Mental evolution is what made culture, science and the kind of discussions witnessed on this forum possible. It's the basis of World III in Popper's words, or the evolution of "memes" (or memetical evolution).
Finally if we take, as I certainly do, Ian Stevenson's research into young children who claim to recall past lives seriously, we can adopt his term personal evolution. As taught by many spiritual and philosophical traditions (Hindu, Buddhist, Platonic, Neoplatonic, Kabbalistic, Hassidic, Celtic, Amerindian, Aboriginal, etc.) physical, mental and cultural evolution would primarily be tools for the gradual personal evolution of individual experients over numerous lives.

Titus