futureone wrote:
Bottom > Up. Nature > Brain. In all models.
← What does that mean? I don’t deny that the brain comes from nature. →
Human brains evolved to perceive Nature…
← Now who’s making assertions? →
Evolving more features and functions, to perceive more of Nature’s data…
The brain is quite complex and can be aware of a great number of things. But evolution only equips brains with what they need to survive in their natural habitat. And this doesn’t even need to be an accurate picture of their habitat. It just has to drive certain behaviors conducive to survival. When you look at the stars, do you see vast distances between them? Can you tell that Alpha Centauri is light years further away than Venus? No, the stars look like holes poked into a black dome–all equally distant from you. What about religion? If the brain was designed to perceive reality as accurately as possible, why are there so many conflicting religions around the world? Even color doesn’t really exist in nature. There are only different frequencies of light. Our brain invents the experience of color as representations of these frequencies. Our perceptions of reality don’t have to be mirror reflections of reality itself, they just have to be isomorphic to reality, there just needs to be a mapping of our experiences to elements or aspects of reality, and those experiences have to be felt in such a way that they drive the kind of behavior that maximizes our chances of survival.
futureone wrote:
Even if you believe in God, or a simulation, or aliens… Human brains would have been constructed, in a way to optimize for diversity of data collection… to perceive Nature’s data…
← What does this mean? If we were created by God or aliens, they could have designed our brains any way they wanted. Maybe diversifying data collection or perceiving nature’s data is the last thing they had in mind. And as for simulations, that’s ipso facto not reality. →
Computer monitors are made of red, green and blue pixels, Human eyes are red green and blue, this is not a coincidence…
← Of course not. We designed the pixels in a monitor after the cone cells in our eyes. →
The color is 3D, hue, saturation, and luminance… not a coincidence, you are making a bold claim that somehow humans will be able to perceive colors in 4D… ← 4D??? No, I’m just saying one of the dimensions (hue) is potentially infinite. → Natural physics suggests that the universe’s physics are 3D, not 4D… String theory debunked long ago…
← I don’t know why dimensions all of a sudden entered the picture. →
Even on drugs, people claim there are 7 dimensions, 9 dimensions, but never articulate it clearly… yet on drugs never do people claim to see new colors…
Are you certain of that? Have you questioned every single person who’s ever done drugs? I know a person (a member of ILP in fact) who claimed to see a brand new color while in an altered state of consciousness (not drug induced). Besides, how do you know what changes need to occur in the brain to see a new color? Drugs either increase the rate of firing of neurons or decrease it. They would either enhance the vibrancy of familiar colors or diminish it. In order to see new colors, I would suspect an entirely new neural circuit would have to be plugged into the brain, a circuit for perceive this new color, and would have to be somehow wired to the retina.
futureone wrote:
Then again, if they are able to play around with the visual cortex of a cyborg, maybe they can make new colors, idk, it just seems somewhat unlikely. And it is a bold claim in order to found a foundational theory on consciousness, on a bold and unproven claim…
I don’t think it’s that bold. Lot’s of people believe in the possibility of experiences that the human brain cannot have while in a normal state (or any state). We know that a lot of the experiences the human brain can have are unimaginable to other animals. Dogs, from what I understand, have dichromatic vision (they see only two colors). Therefore, there must be at least some colors that we can see (and imagine) that are simply incomprehensible to dogs. Why is it that much of a stretch to suppose that we could be in the dog’s position with respect to experiences outside our range of consciousness? Do you think we’ve reached a pinnacle in biological evolution? A pinnacle beyond which there are no more qualities of experience? I actually think that’s highly unlikely.
Anyway, if you choose to respond, maybe do it at My Theory of Consciousness. Leave this thread for the topic of women being replaced by robots in matters of love, sex, and relationships.