Dear Forum,
I can see that this conversation concerning the nature of light and colors has not generated a discussion group yet. I hope that given time, it will mature into a more productive conversation and morph back to discussing consciousness. Tweets are poor conversation...
Mr. Scott, I use dictionary definitions of words; I learned to read and write out of dictionaries. I take it that you mean using words like "illusion" or "hallucination" to describe visual acuity, is out of the costmary context in which you and many others have used them in relationship to talking about psychological disorders. My use of those words, in their context, is proper. I can see that you are not comfortable having those words associated with normal neural activity. The English language does not offer other 'simple to the point' words to replace their meaning/definition. We write with the words that we have to work with. If you are familiar with other common words that could be used in their place, I would like to know what they are; I would consider using them if they offer a more appropriate definition.
Synesthesia is a fascinating subject. However, adding it into this discussion would further muddle my discussion on light and colors, and ultimately our conversation of consciousness and memory. If you would like to start a thread on that topic, I would certainly engage in conversation regarding it.
Zeuzzz, I watch the videos you listed, interesting contribution to the discussion. I have not seen the first one before. The ability to calculate perspective has to have preexisting-neural-wiring to be able to recognize perspective. Perspective can be learned in many ways, normally through vision, but it can also be learn through tactile experience (touch,) or sound. You may have noticed that in the video they did not talk about his younger years as an artist, years when he was experimenting and learning to paint and draw in tactile perspective. I also noticed that his sky impressions had color diffusion/gradients, which required extensive descriptions and coordination from other people before he was able to finger-paint them on his own. He did not get it all right, did you notice the huge bush on top of the windmill roof, or the two sail windmills. If you look at his house and river picture more closely, you will notice that his perspectives are considerably off. He uses tactile perspective (touching) to form a mental image, and then transfers it to his hands. Esref Armagan demonstrates learned perspective skills, not necessarily extraordinary skills. I do not think spending time and rescores on studying his particular skills is warranted. The relevance of the video is that he was able to learn perspective because his brain was genetically pre-wired to process perspective.
I saw the second video about ten years ago. I have studied the phenomena of near death experiences for many years; very interesting neurological response. Though I recognized many parts of this video, I do not remember the blind women's experience and testimony; maybe I went for a cup of coffee when she gave her story. However, most of her experience is typical with the exception of first sight. She claims to visually recognizing things such as her ring, hair, trees, birds, and sky light that she has never seen before. In the few cases where blind people have been given sight for the first time, they have no idea what they are seeing; it takes them a long time to learn to recognize objects. They never develop three-dimensional vision or perspective; their vision is a flat mosaic of light and colors in two dimensions without depth perception. Her story cannot be true because of this. The real intent of the entire video is to suggest a next-life existence, using near death experience as their evidence. There are no tangible facts, just testimony. Testimony has been used for thousands of years as a social engineering tool to generate conceptual beliefs. No matter how convincing her story sounds, without tangible facts, it is only a mediavision story. In spite of that, what she does demonstrate is her brain's ability to generate visual sensations even though she has never seen.
The videos were useful. Thank you for the contribution.
dlorde, oh darn, is mediavision a neologism
Yes, I do insist on calling light and colors a neural illusion. If light and colors do not exist outside the brain, a neural illusion is the correct depiction. You use elusion to neural illusion. Obviously, you do not agree with my assessment of the neural nature of light and colors. You may see it differently down the road.
I have no intention of being patronizing on any level; you misunderstand my writing style. I think Zeuzzz hit it on the head when he/she stated I write succinctly, you are taking offense when none is intended.
You suggested that most of you have degrees; I always get wary when someone holds up a degree as testament to their knowledge. A degree cannot speak for you... your words are what speak for you. Degrees talk about your background education, not necessarily your aptitude or competency. Let the knowledge of your words do that... whether you have a degree or not.
I watched the Human Brain Project video you offered. It was about a futuristic research project wanting to use computers to attempt to mimic or simulate a biological neural network for electronic applications. How is that relevant to this discussion of light and colors? Could you connect the dots for me?
Did you notice that the video stated that the technology already exists? That simply is not true. The software alone would be one of the greatest projects humanity has ever attempted. Many modern software programs have millions of lines of code and require hundreds and sometimes thousands of people to write. A software program that mimics a neural network would take billions of lines of code, and hundreds-of-thousands of people to write over many years. That video was a seven-minute commercial for a website; if you click on Research Areas, then Future Neuroscience, they spell out the challenges. If you read it carefully, you will realize that they have no actual idea how to compose it, just underdeveloped theories. They make bold claims that are well beyond their capabilities in the near future. At best, they may be able to lay groundwork for future endeavors.
They did talk about memory in many of their website sections, do you think they will have to base the entire system on memory before it works? After all, what is an impulse without a memory definition?
Knowledge is like a mountain, you have to do the hard work to climb it before you get to the top; from up there - you see new horizons,
Sincerely, Mark Maloney
sorry, I can't parse that.
