Not specifically, no, although it’s not that I haven’t looked. Here is a very extensive list of online articles on the subject - haven’t had enough time to go through all of them myself but there must be something in there somewhere. However, during the search it occurred to me that “experienced-it type memory” is better described as memory of qualia, or recall of having actually experienced qualia.
I’ve never been professionally tested to see which one I am. I’m most likely an anomalous trichromat as I can see most shades of most colors.
Sorry, I’m still a little unclear. If pathway 4 exists, how is the wavelength even being interpreted? The photon’s collapsed wavefunction can’t simply interact directly with the quantum entangled parts of your brain. Are you suggesting one of the following, that if a wavelength is filtered out:
[list=a]
[li]one would experience the wavelength nonetheless (from memory) OR[/li][li]one would not experience the wavelength OR[/li][li]one would not experience the wavelength and forget previous existence (How would this be tested? How can you see if something that you don’t remember is or is not there?)[/li][li]the experience of the blocked wavelength is assigned to a separate wavelength (How is the separate wavelength determined? What about the experience of the separate wavelength?)[/li][/list=a]
Perhaps you could just post your results to clarify what the parameters are. I’m confident my own results won’t be biased.
These two definitions (as written) don’t mean the same thing.
Memory of qualia for an alcolor-person is seeing the earlier red in his/her brain.
“Recall of having actually experienced qualia” doesn’t even make sense to me. What does that mean?
You can’t the use the very concepts were are discussing to help explain themselves!
And you can’t just get off by ascribing these properties to humans and saying that this makes the difference. HOW does it make a difference: what are they and what do they do that’s relevant?
All you have in an experience. You can call it “conscious,” but that adds very little to anyone’s understanding of it. What is it? What does it do? If we can’t answer these basic questions, how can we use it to justify any particular argument?
Can 't wait.
One would experience a different quale when the wavelength has been removed.
My experiment involved 2 laser pointers of different wavelengths (635nm and 670nm) and 2 blue tinted plastic filters, one of which preferentially absorbed the 670nm beam whereas the other preferentially absorbed the 635nm beam. Although these are both shades of red, there is enough difference in their perceived color to tell at a glance which is which. Upon affixing the filters in front of my eyes, so that each eye looked through a different lens, and observing the spot generated when each laser beam was shone onto the wall, the difference in wavelength became even more apparent since each eye was particularly lacking in sensitivity to one or the other wavelength.
AFAIK no opponent process was created this way. Instead, the red terminus of the red-green opponent process was artificially tuned to a different laser wavelength. Each eye’s perception of redness became differentiated, so that the quale of the 670nm spot was quite different from the quale of the 635nm spot. The 670nm spot took on a distinct very deep red appearance (no surprise) whereas the 635nm spot took on a more orange appearance without actually appearing more yellow than it already did.
After removal of the filters, the left eye’s perception of redness retained its deep quale for a while, and the right eye similarly maintained its “orangish” quale for a similar duration of time. Were these qualia any kind of neurological fatigue effect, one would expect the qualia to reverse after removal of filters (for example, the left eye, accustomed to seeing a “deeper” red, would then perceive reds that are less deep) but this reversal of qualia did not happen.
In addition to observing and noting the changed qualia at the time, I also have the memory of what the modified qualia looked like. At this point in time, redness as I normally see it looks ambiguous, equally resembling both of the modified qualia. In other words, I still remember (after about 4 years) seeing the distinction between the two new colors even though I lack the capacity to distinguish them unaided.
I acknowledge that my results may have been biased by my own belief that the qualia would change. However, the fact remains that 2 new qualia emerged and the memory of them has not gone away.
They don’t?
**
Your point being? 
**
How can you say the 2 definitions don’t mean the same thing if you don’t understand one of them? I don’t know how else to explain it besides what I’ve already written. I see no point in even continuing to define experienced-it type memory. If “recall of having actually experienced qualia” doesn’t make sense then I don’t know what does.
I din’t use them to explain themselves, I used them to explain why a human is different than a rock. :rolleyes:
1.) What are they?
Nobody has yet proven what they are. I’ve heard the arguments for why they are nothing more than brain functions, but the very nature of the phenomena leads me to doubt that. It’s easier for me to believe in souls than in automatically sentient brains.
2.) What do they do that’s relevant?
One produces actions and the other observes the results of those actions. If a rock falls on a person, there is not much to suggest that the rock chose to fall and will feel pain if it’s destroyed. Unless you want to argue that rocks are conscious and have free will, which is fine by me although I won’t agree. Your call.
The consciousness that I sit here asserting is what prevents me from believing the argument against its very existence.
Okay maybe I did define it here already and maybe I didn’t. Can’t remember. :smack: So I hereby define consciousness as that capacity to perceive, which everybody knows they have, that nobody can (yet) prove exists, and that causes some people to ponder whether they are the only “real” person on Earth.
That definition is to give you an idea of what exactly I’m referring to when I say “consciousness”, but something tells me it’s going to get taken in the most literal way possible which misses my point completely.
The issue isn’t that there isn’t any explanation, but rather that there is no general one. As you surmise, if there were a generalized explanation, then no will would be free. I can give answers that explain my actions, why I chose them, why I value them, and so on. What is lacking is the generalization. An agent is simply any causal entity. A hurricane could be an agent of destruction, for example. In the case of free will, the agent is the will. It is the cause of its manifested intentions.
There is a process. Do you not have reasons for doing things?
Because dualism is not very popular…? I don’t know what this is meant to ask. Myself, we cannot seperate the will from the body. While they are conceptually distinct in certain contexts, they are not seperable.
Well this would be very mysterious indeed, but I don’t feel this is actually what is claimed by the the free will camp. What was done can be explained by the agent in question. What cannot be done is creating a general explanation for all agents, since the reasons each agent has for any particular action are as different as their actions.
This is actually two questions. One is, “What causes human action?” The answer is “The will.” Another is, “What causes the will?” The answer is, “The will is, or can be, uncaused.” We don’t hold agents responsible for their being an agent; that is, we don’t hold them responsible for having a will. We hold them responsible for what they choose.
Well I don’t intend my speech to be so equivocal but I am trying to not assume answers to metaphysical questions whenever I can. What I mean is that it is a conceptual entity in monism (which is why I indicated above that the two are not distinct) and a real entity in dualism (where mind and body are distinct). I cannot explain the behavior of a broom by only accounting for its bristles, yet I feel this is what you would have me do.
Coz I literally understand what the second definition means, but it doesn’t seem to hold any meaning.
Your second defn. literally means that you remember that your earlier experiences were not perception-deprived.
Okay maybe it’s a little bit vague but no matter how I try to phrase it, it comes out just as open to interpretation. How about this:
• The brain has its perceptions that it gets from the senses, and records those perceptions
• The consciousness has its qualia that it gets when the brain receives input, and consciousness also records those qualia
This distinction is admittedly based solely on personal experience, but in my experience they are 2 distinct separate phenomena. In fact it seems questionable to me whether the word “memory” should even be used to refer to both perception recording and quale recording; they are that different.
This is why the arguments against the existence of a soul make no sense from my POV. It doesn’t look like we’re going to get any further with this debate because neither side can seem to understand the other’s viewpoint. Of course I still look forward to the results of pothead’s color filter experiment, should s/he choose to see through with it.
Makes better sense now. You are opting for the notion that experiences are stored rather than reconstructed. My neuroscience reading doesn’t indicate that tobe the case, but we can leave it at that.
How would consciousness based “memory” work? Thats probably not a fair question considering no one knows exactly how normal memory works. I understand the distinction, I just don’t see if it holds. Why can’t brain memory and quantum (consciousness) memory be the same?
After further thinking, your experiment seems to be a demonstration of classical conditioning. One response illicits another and crossover between the two experiences creates the ambiguity you described.
BTW, how long did you leave the filters on for?
When I applied the green filter to Ishihara plates, the numbers on them completely dissappeared. There was no ambiguity either during or after as to what I should see. With the filter, the numbers were gone; without, they were there.
On other objects, results varied a little. After the filter was removed, the color of the object wasn’t ambiguous. Looking through the filter though, depending on the original object’s color, the color was either a slight shade of green when compared to the rest of the environment (i.e. only part of it was filtered), or it was its original color. I don’t know if the latter result was based on a consciousness based memory of the object’s color or simple retinex theory. I would lean towards the latter since when the filter was applied to only part of the object, the color did change.
- a he
Never thought of that. Maybe the qualia memory is a side effect of consciousness. As for the distinction, the types of memory seem to be too different. Brain memory includes every sensory input, every thought, every action that the body is capable of, but then aside from that there’s all these qualia.
Huh. Not sure how conditioning implies but you have a point. I don’t doubt that there is probably some degree of neurological activity that goes on. But then there’s still the question of where those 2 extra qualia came from.
It was a long time ago but I’d guess maybe 10-15 minutes. Less than half an hour.
It sounds like you’re looking at the opponent processes and not the qualia. After looking through the filter for a while, do you notice any change in the qualia of yellowness and blueness? What about with one eye filtered and one unfiltered - red and green objects (for example) will appear brighter in one or the other eye but do they also take on exaggerated dissimilar appearances aside from what you normally call “red” and “green”?
Ah, I didn’t understand that at first. :o But it would have been a reasonable assumption anyway, what with color blindness being linked to the X-chromosome. :smack:
Theres no empirical data that can be used to distinguish which type of memory exists in which mechanistic realm. These waters are entirely too murky.
Conditioning would just mean that having seen those two altered wavelengths for a period of time, you get a crossover of qualia. (Like Pavlov’s dogs that would slobber at the sound of a bell.)
I don’t think opponent processes are affecting the results. The opponent colors don’t appear. After looking through the filter, the qualia of yellow or blue didn’t change from the original. The only change was when the filter was there, and then it was just shifty at times.
What exactly do you mean by “shifty”?
Once again I miss a great discussion.
Oh well, I haven’t read pages 2 and 3, but I feel I must add my thoughts on the subject.
First of all, I feel it’s very difficult to comprehend exactly how quantum mechanics work (QM).
But, to me like even though it’s based on the element of chance, this is only because we don’t have the equipment or expertize to fully understand how they interact and what guides them.
That doesn’t mean there is actually any element of chance in nature.
It could be for example String Theory that guides it, but I won’t get into that.
Anyway.
To be able to understand how consciousness works, we have to define it.
Now my definition goes something like this:
It is the mixed experience a cognitive person gets when observing and sensing the outer world, and the memories of sensing the outer world.
I say it’s fully based on the perceived world because if a person did not have a body, except a heart, two lungs and a brain, I doubt any consciousness would arise(given that we could somehow spawn a 40 year olds brain, with the experience and memories of an unborn baby.
Herein lies the problem IMO. What if it did actually manage to create a world in itself, by itself without ANY kind of sensory input?
So my conclusion is than that the brain needs the body, the nervous system, the 5 senses and everything else to be able to make us. It’s not just in the brain itself.
And also this is proven because medication and brain damage can affect the behavior AND counsciousness of a person /radically/.
So I don’t know. All this QM talk and stuff, noone really knows, and if we did how would we back up the theory with observed facts?
I am though, interested in how it works on a technical level, I am just spilling out some thoughts on how it works on a more philosophical level. I’ll leave the experiements to scientists.
I looked at a yellow post-it note so some times the green filter would make it look yellow-green but most of the time it would appear to be yellow (albeit a little dimmer/darker), which I’m chalking up to retinex theory.
What about an energy source? You could just dunk the brain in nutrient solution instead. 
This would be an interesting experiment, but there’d be a no way to know whether the entity was conscious.
Maybe it could be emulated with dissassociatives, where the senses are cut off from the mind. From what I’ve read of the drugs, people are hyper-conscious during the experience, but I don’t know if this would hold true in a non-developed brain which has never experienced any sensation.
Certainly the retinex theory applies. I was hoping that it would be possible to make your eyes sensitive to different regions of the spectrum that would ordinarily look the same to you, but since we do not know whether you’re a trichromat or a dichromat it’s hard to go on so little information.
Just for grins I repeated my laser dot experiment. This time I only had the filters over my eyes for a minute or two, but it soon became obvious that since there is (to me) a noticeable difference in hue between 635 and 670 nm, and it is entirely possible that the qualia of the beams are based on the fact that they are different colors to begin with. Therefore my experiement with those particular wavelengths has not ruled out the brain as the source of consciousness.