I wouldn’t, since the matter remains unresolved either way.
There it is: ‘visual processing’
From Tevildo’s posts:
That assumes that all congenitally blind are so because something’s wrong with their eye.
Establish supervenience first.
I don’t. Certainly I haven’t associated any quale with the label “bat sonar experience”
Because you employ disingenuous tactics that don’t require a para to knock down, like the “neurons are physical” with the smug non-evident “QED” or an assertion of the definitive reason why the congenitally blind can’t see, except that’s what is under debate. You must be pretty familiar with Schopenhauer’s Art of Controversy.
Actually, no. You were attempting to demonstrate that utilizing solely the opinion of a single subject, and without any comparison to the opinions of others, the only causal factor (in seeing “green”) is light.
Can’t be done. It makes no difference if the label the experimenter creates for the subjects response is “green”, or “quoggle”, or “Response # 1”. The experimenter has no way of interpreting the response without some standard of reference for doing so; a standard that is not supplied by subject’s response.
Hell, you can’t even collect data from a subject without first referencing measurements that were established through the opinion of someone, somewhere.
Light is necessary in order to see “green”. Neurons (or their functional equivalent) are necessary. Something akin to “working memory” seems necessary. Language is necessary. The proper sequence of opsin amino acids (or their functional equivalent) is necessary.
But light alone doesn’t account for, explain, or cause color, and neither does language, opsin, etc.
There is no way to isolate any single physical factor as causal, nor to isolate your subjects data without gutting it of informational content. Hence, “light” is not the only causal factor in seeing green.
Clarification introduces more inaccuracy? I really don’t know how to respond to that.
I’m all for modifying our “normal” way of thinking, but the justifications for modifying our thinking in a way that tends to support supervenience physicalism seem no better to me than the justifications that support other, competing “isms”. (YMMV, of course).
There’s something about this I don’t understand. The inputs go into… what? The outputs are produced from… what? I can’t help but get a picture of a homunculus; a Cartesian Theatre where sensory input “culminates” in awareness and output is produced. That CAN’T be what you’re talking about, so I’ll ask you to elaborate.
Since “green” is not identical to the wavelength of light, no. Your response reinforces the idea that “green” is a construct: a wide range of wavelengths can strike my retina and (with other factors in place) I still end up with “green”.
I cannot see wavelengths of light shown through a prism as a continuum. Seeing some sort of green band is not arbitrary for me, but the introduction of a continuum into my experience of prism-light certainly is. Frankly, I can’t even see the justification for referring to light emanating from the business end of a prism as a “continuum”.
I have to disagree. You can’t fight ignorance by adding to it, and, I mean,… Rove? Michael Moore? The Internet? There is already way too much misinformation in circulation.
Well, I can certainly appreciate Ockham’s Razor as a general guideline, but that’s about it. The necessity of an entity, is, after all, in the eye of the beholder, and physicalism hardly has a monopoly on the invocation of OR.
Physicalism’s addition of scientific methodology doesn’t impress me much. Sure, science is extremely useful, but physicalism takes the seemingly unwarranted step of making scientific methodology the ultimate if not only arbiter of credibility. Unless there is scientific evidence that scientific evidence is the only credible form of evidence, physicalism, like some other “isms”, strikes me as being hoist by its own petard.
In short, I’m not saying that the alternatives seem just as reasonable as physicalism, I’m saying that physicalism seems just as unreasonable as the alternatives.
Surely it does if a shift of the prism yields the label “non-green”, “non-quoggle” or “Response #2”? What causes this difference in label?
In this instance, where all else is held equal, subject included, it is the wavelength of the light which is changed, solely.
Well, you’re the one who complained that so simple a phrase as “I see green light” is inaccurate. Given such an incredibly high benchmark, I must admit to being pessimistic about further words of mine attaining it rather than them digging me deeper into a hole. Still, they are only words, so I’ll continue to put them on your screen as long as it’s useful.
OK, let’s go at it from the other direction (in another thread perhaps, since we’re way off colour here, so to speak). What is it about spatial arrangements, compared to temporal arrangements, which monopolises the word “thing” (or others like it)? Why can’t “things” be dynamic as well as static?
Of course, I ditched the homunculus yeas ago. Your outputs are your speech or sentences on this message board. Your inputs are the effects the universe has on your sensoria (including the light from your monitor here). Since those effects can also be stored in memory, they can be considered delayed, reactivated inputs. “To or from what?” Like the silicon computer, that physical substrate where inputs become outputs via “processing”. (We need not get into the detail thereof just yet – I personally prefer a model including both semantically driven “computation proper” andneural network-based alternatives. Whatever this brain thing is, it is monumentally complicated, so I don’t see how it can’t use various mechanisms to “process”.)
But what is it about LOW 575 which is different to 570 in a way that 565 is not? Can you demonstrate to me that LOW 575 is not green, while LOW 570 is?
Again, if your test of what constitues “ignorance” is so incredibly difficult to pass, there’s arguably almost nothing but, even in this thread. I’d suggest that ignorance triumphs where those who could have fought it ultimately don’t for fear of making things worse.
And we both behold the universe and everything in it to be necessary, unless we become solipsists. Ockham’s Razor asks what more is necessary. Like I say, I suggest you are interpreting it rather perversely if you say that physical things aren’t necessary to explain most (if not all) phenomena.
As you would be in a court of law, you realise, if the jury relied on faith, hearsay or other non-scientific evidence to convict you. When it really comes down to it, we all consider scientific evidence as a cut above other kinds. You are throwing all kinds of babies out with that bathwater.
What’s the difference?
I think we’re nearing the end of useful dialogue here, questioning the utility of scientific evidence over other kinds and the like - heck, we might as well go right ahead and debate solipsism or Descartes’ Devil since every philosophical argument can ultimately dissolve so. If you say “OK clever clogs, show me that physicalism’s better than solipsism”, I’m afraid I have no ‘definitive’ answer. Nevertheless, it would disappoint me that we’d yet again gone backwards rather than forwards.
Yes, correlation is a process, easily performed by physical circuitry.
Tev: I appreciate that you may regard the division of neural physiology as a whole into “visual” and “cognitive” as being arbitrary - if so, I don’t think I have any reason to disagree with you.
People whose eyes have never worked at all are congenitally blind.
I don’t need to to say that neurons are physical, because they clearly are.
And congentially blind people haven’t associated any quale (whatever that is) with the label “colour”.
Funny, other people think I debate honestly and in good faith. Might it be that your one-liner tactics are ultimately not conducive to a high standard of debate?
Anyway, I’m not fond of tennis – cheerio. I leave the court open to you to smash home your ‘points’ without defence.
What causes this difference in label? That’s the whole point: You don’t know and cannot know solely from the response of a single subject. If you’re not comparing the subject’s responses to some standard (or your own experience) all you know is that it’s different. You don’t know even know how it’s different, let alone what causes the difference. And if your sole subject had protanopia you would have no response, and therefore no data, at all.
You didn’t address the rest of my post, which contains the meat of my argument, so I’ll recast it as direct questions (and if you were wondering why I ask so many questions, well, that’s one of the main reasons):
In order to see “green”, are neurons (or their functional equivalent) as necessary as light? Is language? Opsin (or it’s functional equivalent)?
If not, why not? If so, what justification is there for singling out light as the directly causal factor?
Bah. “The sun is setting”. “I’m flying down to Rio”. “Metal is colder than wood.” I’ve already said, several times, that statements like these are inaccurate, but everybody (including me) uses them freely and without further explanation in normal conversation. But the OP was a philosophical question concerning consciousness and the very nature of color. Questioning the accuracy and meaning of the statement “I see green light” is perfectly justified.
Yeah, these two are complex and they’re both probably off topic. Perhaps another thread.
What is about LOW 575 that’s different to me? To me, it’s not green.
If I understand your question, no, I sure can’t, at least not without evoking private, subjective experience.
Well, yeah. As a card-carrying physicalist, I would expect you to find any non-physicalist interpretation rather perverse.
What’s with the strawman? I’ve never said scientific evidence cannot be credible.
For some (many, actually) applications? Yes, I would hope so. For all applications, no, people don’t all accept scientific evidence as superior or even germane.
If you think I’m throwing babies out with the bathwater with that statement, well, you’re just going to have to learn to live without them babies unless you can provide scientific evidence that scientific evidence is the only credible form of evidence.
Perhaps we are nearing the end here. But to state plainly what I thought I’d made abundantly clear: I don’t question the utility of scientific evidence. I do question the superiority of scientific evidence over all other forms of evidence in all circumstances. And that any claim that the only form of credible evidence is scientific evidence is self-negating.
Well, I think the strawmen are appearing all over the place actually, o-w, and we’re going round in circles. Indeed, I don’t think I can set forth my position with regard to “the physicalism of colour” any better than I did in my very first post in this thread.
But one final point: it strikes me that the reason you find physicalism “as unreasonable as” alternatives like pansychism or pantheism might be because you haven’t questioned them in anywhere near as much detail. You’ve questioned me for pages on end in the past, and I’d be happy if you did so again (correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t recall ever seeing you write an OP of your own here - perhaps now’s the time?). But I’d also certainly be interested in seeing you subject others here to similar treatment, and subsequently asking you whether they really stacked up better or worse. Might this be skewing your view somewhat, do you think?
And? The chief issue about this debate is whether colors are physical. Tev’s remark is unambigious: "“colour” is not something that exists in and of itself, outside consciousness"
This is the disingenuous tactic I’m talking about. Let’s rewind this debate tape a bit
SM: I’m telling you how it is necessary, referencing congentially blind who cannot seebecause their wavelength receptors have never worked.
Gyan: That assumes that all congenitally blind are so because something’s wrong with their eye.
SM: People whose eyes have never worked at all are congenitally blind.
We’re talking about the set of all congenitally blind (CB), not the set of all those with nonfunctional eyes (NE). All NE belong to CB, but the question is do all CB belong to NE.
Exactly. So we don’t know if they do experience color, but classify those qualia different than those with working vision.
Just look in this thread:
other-wise: Sentient, you say you’re honestly trying to understand my position, but I have a hard time believing you when you keep putting words into my mouth – & – Of course it is, unless you take my answer out of context yet again.