Taste is an effect denoted by physical info [those sinewaves] and the experience is of that. The experience especially those of taste and feelings are I admit problematic, but we can take the idea and also ask; do all things experience themselves? If so then colour knows itself to be colour just as we do, after all, our physics is no different to physics et al.
That gets more difficult when we imagine something having the taste of itself, it is more likely that a given thing has smells and taste is the receiving of that, perhaps something akin to to opposites.
Another issue is that there is apparently no experiencer of smells/tastes or of colour, but what if we don’t have an experiencer?
It is difficult to say what we are, what human nature is [compared to the physics], but not if there are no such things. That instead of inducing a primary duality between us and reality, all the things we attribute to humans and to ‘the experiencer’, are in fact things in the world. One thing experiences itself and that is a relative and perspective based thing, so e.g. the colour of a rainbow self experiences in respect to its position and informational denominations.
All the crazy differences between our experience of the world and the world itself are an illusion. We cannot explain what we are by the physics, but that’s because there is a refusal in science to add all that into the mix. If we say that all mental qualia are the same as qualities in the world [and hence there are no mental qualia], that makes the cold pointless physical universe into a warm experiencing one.
All there is left is perspective, more complex things [like humans and animals] with instruments of observation [all the senses], are experiencing themselves from a centralised perspective. There is no difference between colour in a rainbow or the mind.
Perhaps if something is part of something sentient then it probably has a sense of its make up, but I doubt my white coffee table or bright orange cushion covers do.
Colour derives from the chemical compounds within a material, so I would say that colour is a by-product of a material’s existence and not the other way round.
You need to add an ingredient – sentience, for that to be true.
I am not saying that the cushion or rainbow experiences themselves like a person does, as that’s a more complex experience.
You can have colour in terms of pure light e.g. in a vacuum, the material simply changes its rate [of its sinewave]. either way it doesn’t change the question imho.
Experience might experience itself in the sense that experience drives matter and energy to action. In other words, motion in the universe is caused by experience because its what makes them aware of the external, much like us when we integrate the information from our surroundings.
This would mean that experience would be something that is cut into parts. What determines how experience is divided into things is far from my reach. But it is the only way to make sense that everything experiences.
You’re still adding something which is ‘experience’ to the equation. I am saying that e.g. a photon is an experience of being a photon ~ it experiences itself by way of being what it is, as opposed to containing or otherwise having and experiencing entity to it.
Where does one stop with that, mice, snails - surely they experience? What I meant was that .g. the colour being itself, IS the experience of being itself - in simplest terms.
You are a complex being imagining such things in a complex manner, and not a simple one.
What would you say is the experiencer otherwise? See the problem now.
Isn’t everything simply energy? Types of energies we recognize and those we don’t. Sentient beings process more types of energies. The more sentient you are the more energy sources you have to pull from.
every + ‘thing’ is energy, but not the universe when it stretched to infinity at the beginning, nor reality beyond [before/after] the universe. it does seem like we have more of ‘something’ than the physics would suggest, I agree. the truth is either that we are more, or that everything is more ~ which is what I am after here. it makes nature into a living breathing thing - so to say, and that the world isn’t dead and pointless as it would seem without us/life.
somehow science has enabled us to see everything without us seeing what we are.
Well that makes it sound even more vague. How about to ‘exist’ – ‘to-be’ and there isn’t anything else, thus making the term ‘experience’ into a conflation?
I think so; when a photon is moving in a wave package which is red, then because that ‘says’ ‘red’ and it is information and hence instructive, the the quality or redness does exist in the world. Your TV has such qualities, no? Ergo in our brain where there is an experience of red when you see it, your brain is making a colour quality in a similar way. Your experience is naturally much more than that, because your brain is an impressive bit of kit, and produces multiple qualities and something which observes them, making the whole bunch of things into a bundle [of experience].
We wouldn’t say that if we the experiencers didn’t exist, then the world wouldn’t exist e.g. because nothing would know it’s there.
Or at least the idea suggests to me that; ‘existence is being the thing that it is’, if there is red there is red, if you are seeing blue via colour blindness or optical illusions, then your brain is converting red to blue. There is I think, no confusion in that if we accept all parties as valid per appearance and the perspectives thereof.
That still doesn’t equate to them experiencing themselves though… an object is an object with the intention of being what it is…?
I think so; when a photon is moving in a wave package which is red, then because that ‘says’ ‘red’ and it is information and hence instructive, the the quality or redness does exist in the world. Your TV has such qualities, no? Ergo in our brain where there is an experience of red when you see it, your brain is making a colour quality in a similar way. Your experience is naturally much more than that, because your brain is an impressive bit of kit, and produces multiple qualities and something which observes them, making the whole bunch of things into a bundle [of experience].
[/quote]
We wouldn’t know this for sure unless a reading of the object could be taken… an MRI for inanimate objects if you will. Or has this been done already?
our experience is of being, I don’t think there is an intent to exist, we just do.
to the second point, any instrument is going to read only the physical aspects imho. there is no way to read qualia as they are what the photons moving up and down at a given rate mean - in effect.
We purposefully breed with the intention of having offspring, and that offspring have every intention of thriving… in an ideal world allowing them to, that is.
We make a chair or table with the intention of them being a chair or table… I’m sure that Science will one day give us a qualia-reading device, but until then…
But what makes a table, a table? If the table has consciousness, why wasn’t I born a table, and why was it born a table…why is it seperate from me and how can both of us exist in different modes?
an object is an object with the intention of being what it is…?