A question for scientists: Primary and Secondary qualities

[Suggestologist]

Well then, I must apologize for something I said earlier. I had said but I am obviously wrong. Your use of the word "hallucination" in the first quote above is clearly different from any usage I have ever seen. Most folk I know would have used the term "imagining" or even "picturing" the cat in question, and none would have confusedly thought that the cat was, in fact, present in person when it was present "in mind". The term "hallucination", on the other hand, (and this is without a dictionary, so cut me a bit of slack, I'm using the word as I use the word) implies a distortion in one's perception of reality.

Oh, the usage of "hallucination" I used here, entails a distortion in one's perception of reality. But, you have not had enough experience to know that it does. Allow me to offer some:

For one, most people think that what they "hallucinate" matches what others "hallucinate" from the same sentence. The facts, scientific facts, demonstrate their error. One person hallucinates the cat chasing the ball of yarn in play, while another hallucinates the cat hitting a ball of yarn attached to a pole on a string. If they now proceed to discuss the properties of the ball's motion, they will never make headway unless they first clarify the details of each other's hallucinations. They may even infer that the other has engaged in "willfull ignorance" of the facts of the case, or that the other merely "pretends" to misunderstand. Both have mistaken the state of affairs.

For two, such "hallucinations", which people must engage in - in order to understand what someone communicates to them; can create false senses and false memories of reality.

Under scientific conditions, people watched a car accident. Then, experimenters asked half of them: "Did you see the cars smash?", experimenters asked the other half: "Did you see the cars hit?" or something similar.

When both groups of subjects next answered the question: "How fast do you think the cars were going?"; the subjects who heard the "smash" question said that they saw the cars moving faster than did the subjects who heard the "hit" question. Obviously, their internal hallucinations contributed to their recall of reality. And the specific words they heard others use, before they answered the question of speed; influenced their "hallucinations".

My friends who have tried various chemicals or fungi to induce hallucinations assure me that it is in fact the world that melts away, and that is the freaky thing. I can very easily imagine that I have four legs (an additional pair, that is); this is not disturbing in the least. I have a friend who hallucinated that I had four legs, and this was extremely disturbing. His reality had shifted; mine had not. If every time I close my eyes and picture Girl6, you say I am hallucinating, we really have no need to continue this thread; your solipsism may not extend to public nudity, but it certainly is reflected in your vocabulary.

As I have stated earlier, hallucinations need not radically alter the reality, from the "base" of "video described" reality. Hallucination may merely adjust reality slightly, but even slight adjustments -- as in the case of the "hit" vs. "smash" questioning -- can impact future events radically. Specifically for the case discussed, in eye-witness testimony, and the resulting disposition of a court case.

 

[Dymanic]

What quantified formula above?

What sort?

What is what labor for?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

What Dennett is talking about you mean. Precisely my point. The substantive content of Dennett's position cannot be captured in a single paragraph, and I wasn't trying to do that. Not having read him, I don't see how you can possibly hope to find the right box to put him in. If you are relying on others to do that for you, I suggest you check their work

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ian,

You can't disagree, I'm stating what is the case.

Our experiences are the qualities.

No, intrinsically they have nothing to do with each other.

I infer nothing, rather I directly experience it.

No I don't, I directly experience it.

No I don't.

No it's not. The colour of the wall is colorE.

No it's not.

Reality is constituted by experiences. Certainly not just my experiences, admittedly. But I've already said this a billion times. You've failed to listen so far so . . .

No there is no "must" about it. External reality is constituted by the totality of experiences.

It's just an agreement between all perceivers. The "redness" is a consensus of subjectivity.

There is not more to the colour of the wall than peoples experiences.

Indeed I can infer the reality of that which is not directly percieved. All this means is that when the inferred parts come into the sphere of experience then I will experience them.

You win, Ian. I cannot possibly refute your comprehensive proof-by-assertion.

Sorry, this is really boring!

I am sorry that I wasted your time by actually responding to your questions, rather than simply assuming that you are just speaking to hear yourself talk.


Dr. Stupid

 

[Interesting Ian]

Do you infer that the scale was properly calibrated?

Infer from what? No, one just assumes it. I am not of course denying that all our observations involve low level theory, but this is not they type of inference Stimpy and Mercutio are referring to.

 

[Interesting Ian]

What Dennett is talking about you mean. Precisely my point. The substantive content of Dennett's position cannot be captured in a single paragraph, and I wasn't trying to do that. Not having read him, I don't see how you can possibly hope to find the right box to put him in. If you are relying on others to do that for you, I suggest you check their work

He claims that he has explained that which in principle cannot be explained. My time is finite and I do not intend wasting it by reading what idiots have written.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

He claims that he has explained that which in principle cannot be explained.

A conclusion based on...the title?

My time is finite and I do not intend wasting it by reading what idiots have written.

Congratulations on your 4378th post.

 

[Interesting Ian]

He claims that he has explained that which in principle cannot be explained.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A conclusion based on...the title?

Yes. The title seems pretty unambigious to me. Perhaps he should have reworded it "Consciousness explained away"?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Infer from what? No, one just assumes it. I am not of course denying that all our observations involve low level theory, but this is not they type of inference Stimpy and Mercutio are referring to.

Actually, if by the felt weight of the flour the reading seemed inconsistent, then one might infer the scale was not properly calibrated. Our background knowledge about the world determines our expectations. Thus a given felt weight of flour will dictate our expectations on the reading. And of course we would also expect that a given quantity of flour will not vary in weight on a day by day basis etc etc. So inference is implicit in everything.

But this isn't the type of inference that Stimpy was talking about! Rather it is the type of inference I originally thought he was talking about.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian,



You win, Ian. I cannot possibly refute your comprehensive proof-by-assertion.



I am sorry that I wasted your time by actually responding to your questions, rather than simply assuming that you are just speaking to hear yourself talk.


Dr. Stupid

I wrote them posts after I came in from a nightclub when I was drunk. Maybe I would have elaborated more when I was sober. Or maybe I wouldn't.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Perhaps he should have reworded it "Consciousness explained away"?

That would require a revision of his explanation as well.

 

[Interesting Ian]

I mentioned it, because Ian seemed "to be" using the concept of indexing. I'll start writing posts in E-prime only, from now on, at least in this thread.

Suggestologist,

I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by "indexing". Also there are a few other terms which you use that I do not know the meaning of. I have had a poor education.

They have muddied the waters at least as much as Ian has. And I have muddied things as well, and intend to muddie matters more in my campaign of muddification and desedimentation of what I see as a "cult of scientism".

I have no intention of muddying the waters. I think part of the confusion is arising because Stimpy and I look at the world in such a diametrically differing way. I do also however suspect that he uses words in a differing sense from their normal meaning in order to engender confusion in his opponents, and to appear to the casual reader who skims through our posts that he is winning the arguments. I find this extremely annoying.

BTW I wonder if you could expand a bit on this "cult of scientism" or provide a link?

Thanks.



That's what you get, when people assume they know what the other person means, simply because they recognize a word as meaningful to themselves. [/B][/QUOTE]

 

[Interesting Ian]

That would require a revision of his explanation as well.

Why?

 

[Dymanic]

Dennett rejects Cartesian dualism, and especially the notion of consciousness as a phenomenon of locality; he does not declare that consciousness does not exist, however. In CE, he describes his 'Multiple Drafts' model, which sort of redistributes conciousness among a 'Pandemonium of Homunculi'. This idea is more difficult to absorb than might first be expected, probably because that isn't how it feels.

 

[Mercutio]

Where do I deny that one has to be capable of perceiving colour first?

Um, right here:

Which is manifestly false since I do directly perceive lengthE, indeed by definition.

So, do you perceive length directly, or by inference by change in color?

Infer from what? No, one just assumes it. I am not of course denying that all our observations involve low level theory, but this is not they type of inference Stimpy and Mercutio are referring to.

Once again, that word "inference" gets us into trouble. I have refered to both types of inference (that's why I suggested "Perhaps we need a new word "inferM" for "infered through the process of measurement", as opposed to "inferP" for "infered through the process of perception."). Which do you mean (or is it yet another?) by "low level theory"?

When one makes a measurement it is not inferred. If I place some flour on a scale then the reading might say 150 grammes. That is not inferred, rather it is directly seen.

Now you are using "directly" inconsistently. How can you "directly" perceive the weight of something you had to put on a scale? You talk about the "felt" weight in another post--arguably that would be "directly" perceived.


Oops...I just read this:

Actually, if by the felt weight of the flour the reading seemed inconsistent, then one might infer the scale was not properly calibrated. Our background knowledge about the world determines our expectations. Thus a given felt weight of flour will dictate our expectations on the reading. And of course we would also expect that a given quantity of flour will not vary in weight on a day by day basis etc etc. So inference is implicit in everything.

Although I would say "nearly" everything, it would appear that my complaint above is addressed nicely. I retract it (but leave the evidence above for those following the thread...).

But then you say this is not what Stimpy was talking about. While I cannot speak for the Cat, I know this is certainly one of the types of inference I was talking about!

 

[Mercutio]

Oh, the usage of "hallucination" I used here, entails a distortion in one's perception of reality. But, you have not had enough experience to know that it does. Allow me to offer some:

*snip of Loftus work on eyewitness testimony* [/B]

I have not had enough experience? Thank you for knowing me better than I know myself...

If you are going to use Loftus's work, cite it. Then re-read it and understand it. This may be "hallucinations" on Planet X, but here we call it "remembering" or "memory". Loftus clearly demonstrates here that our memories are not, as popularly thought, a straightforward recall of prior events. They are subject to bias and distortion. You might stretch this to call it hallucination, but only if you first assume that our memory should be perfect (and any deviation from perfection is pathological), and second assume that we cannot tell the difference between memory and current life. "Distortion of memory" is not at all the same as "Hallucination."

Stimpy and I have both said that we do not believe that we can prove our world-view or yours is correct. Stimpy has listed conditions that he assumes in order to infer other things within a particular world-view. You (and Interesting Ian) assume different things (perhaps the reality of mental entities, but I don't want to put words in your mouth) at the ground floor and build upon those. I can understand many of the differences between Ian and myself when I see the initial assumptions.

...but what you are doing with the word "hallucinations" is just pathetic. It is not the scientific definition, nor is it the common definition, that you are using. I would be interested in hearing Ian's comments on your use of the word.

I am at a loss here; I can at least communicate with Ian, but I need the help of a translator to continue this thread...(hey, Rayn, can you translate?)

 

[Suggestologist]

I have not had enough experience? Thank you for knowing me better than I know myself...

No need to thank me.

If you are going to use Loftus's work, cite it. Then re-read it and understand it. This may be "hallucinations" on Planet X, but here we call it "remembering" or "memory". Loftus clearly demonstrates here that our memories are not, as popularly thought, a straightforward recall of prior events. They are subject to bias and distortion. You might stretch this to call it hallucination, but only if you first assume that our memory should be perfect (and any deviation from perfection is pathological), and second assume that we cannot tell the difference between memory and current life. "Distortion of memory" is not at all the same as "Hallucination."

You acknowledge that my definition includes perceptual distortion of "reality", and you stated this as a definition earlier. Now you claim that I have misunderstood your meaning.

And as I have stated earlier, everyone (nearly) always hallucinates.

Memory does not have to enter into it. Precontextualization can have the same effect as postcontextualization (mental sets) on perception of events. (i.e. first impressions).

Also, consider my first point ("for one") more thouroughly.

Stimpy and I have both said that we do not believe that we can prove our world-view or yours is correct. Stimpy has listed conditions that he assumes in order to infer other things within a particular world-view. You (and Interesting Ian) assume different things (perhaps the reality of mental entities, but I don't want to put words in your mouth) at the ground floor and build upon those. I can understand many of the differences between Ian and myself when I see the initial assumptions.

Unfortunately, Stimpson seems to have a hard time coming to terms with the circularity in his world view.

...but what you are doing with the word "hallucinations" is just pathetic. It is not the scientific definition, nor is it the common definition, that you are using. I would be interested in hearing Ian's comments on your use of the word.

You provided a definitional meaning for hallucination, I showed that my meaning included yours (sensory distortion). How does that constitute an appeal to pathos?

I need the help of a translator to continue this thread...(hey, Rayn, can you translate?)

How astute of you to realize this. But confining this realization to me and this thread, shows that you have not fully understood yet.

 

[Suggestologist]

Suggestologist,

I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by "indexing". Also there are a few other terms which you use that I do not know the meaning of. I have had a poor education.

Korzybski wanted to clarify which particular definitions of terms people used in intercourse, er.. conversational intercourse. To do this, he placed indexed references as subcripts to the term. He indexed by the definition's creator, the time the term meant what it seemed to mean in the sentence, etc.

Pretend than everything after a "_" begins a subscript, and that the end of the term ends the subscript.

So: my-dog_August-10,2003_10:23am-CDT means something different from my-dog_August-10,2003_10:24am-CDT, because of the difference in the time index. The first term may mean a sleeping dog, the second term may mean an eating dog. Similarly; colorM_InterestingIan and colorM_Stimpson mean different things and have different definitions.

I have no intention of muddying the waters. I think part of the confusion is arising because Stimpy and I look at the world in such a diametrically differing way. I do also however suspect that he uses words in a differing sense from their normal meaning in order to engender confusion in his opponents, and to appear to the casual reader who skims through our posts that he is winning the arguments. I find this extremely annoying.

Probably: neither you nor stimpy have the intent to muddy. Only I have overtly stated the intent at times. Nevertheless, both of you do have the effect of muddying. And only I have stated my intent to desedimentize.

BTW I wonder if you could expand a bit on this "cult of scientism" or provide a link?

Thanks.

I just made it up. Other people no doubt have a different meaning for the term than I have. I use it to mean those who believe that by appealing to a society of "science", they have the right to disqualify the reality of another person's personal experiences.

 

[Dancing David]

Oh, the usage of "hallucination" I used here, entails a distortion in one's perception of reality. But, you have not had enough experience to know that it does. Allow me to offer some:

[/B]

I can understand why you might use the world 'hallucination' to refer to the contextual nature of perception and the way the cognitive language influence perception. But you are ignoring the fact that the word hallucination has a very strong meaning especialy for those who live with a chronic mental illness.

There are people who actualy do hallucinate , which technicaly is not what you do when you abuse LSD. Wjen someone has an auditory hallucination they percieve a voice that others do not, but it is a real experience to them, created by brain chemmestry malfunctioning. When people have a temporal lobe seizure, they will percieve colors and objects that are ther but they are not, they are more internal stimuli.

There is a wealth of material and language on what our brains do, and I suggest, not very humbly that you look up those words and language, so we don't get into these debates with people like Mecrutio, who is too polite to tell you that he is the real thing.

You do seem to be Ian's match for arrogance and sheer stupidity. You are some sort of poseur.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Suggestologist

everyone (nearly) always hallucinates.

This is something I also agree with, though 'hallucinate' isn't the word I would have chosen. I like to think of our view of the world as a 'simulation'. Science acknowledges this as well; it is in fact to counteract this effect that we restrict ourselves with scientific methodology.

neither you nor stimpy have the intent to muddy. Only I have overtly stated the intent at times. Nevertheless, both of you do have the effect of muddying.

After we all get done muddying up this subject, maybe we can go out and freeze some ice, maybe set some lava on fire.

 

[Suggestologist]

I can understand why you might use the world 'hallucination' to refer to the contextual nature of perception and the way the cognitive language influence perception. But you are ignoring the fact that the word hallucination has a very strong meaning especialy for those who live with a chronic mental illness.

There are people who actualy do hallucinate , which technicaly is not what you do when you abuse LSD. Wjen someone has an auditory hallucination they percieve a voice that others do not, but it is a real experience to them, created by brain chemmestry malfunctioning. When people have a temporal lobe seizure, they will percieve colors and objects that are ther but they are not, they are more internal stimuli.

Most people can hear a voice that other do not -- whenever they want to. It doesn't require brain chemistry malfunctioning.

You have an unstated presupposition that hallucinations must occur involuntarily -- without intent to produce the specific content of the hallucination. I hear that in your response above.

But hallucinations all have the basic property of altering perceptions of the "real" world. And I define the term that way. I could bring in jargon terminology, but that would only make the discussion opaque.

There is a wealth of material and language on what our brains do, and I suggest, not very humbly that you look up those words and language, so we don't get into these debates with people like Mecrutio, who is too polite to tell you that he is the real thing.

You do seem to be Ian's match for arrogance and sheer stupidity. You are some sort of poseur.

What sort?