Where quale transcends form, function and mind...

[Amorphos]

Where quale transcends form, function and mind…

There must be a way in which the mind reads input from the material, that ability, ‘to recognise’ ‘to know’, is there for both the material and immaterial resolution-to-the-matter.

It makes matter rather more interesting if it can do stuff like that, if it can also be all the things we experience ourselves to be. I’d say once we attribute all those things to the material, then its quite a different thing.

For example:

Lets put colour into the material and see what we get;

We have three boxes, in one, colour is photonic wavelengths, in the next it is electrical signals and chemicals in our brain, in the final box colour is perceptual. So which one is colour in?

Really it is in neither, its something which flows through them all and changes as required. Which means that it transmigrates form, from light to electric, to perceptual arrangements and patterns.
For me the brain in a sense listens too and looks at all three boxes, it gives credence to the perceptual box because in that box the world-view has been arranged, its like the image on the monitor rather than the input into the computer.

However, we can also look in any of the boxes and not find quale as literally there, its neither directly physical nor mental [1][2][below].

I feel sure though, that colour is out there in the world, this ‘yellow lemon’ I see on the table also has colour ‘quale’, but we can no longer refer to colour as a mental quale. We have found it to be in none of the boxes, yet we know that the yellow lemon is in our perception because we experience it there. We also know from physics that there is a relationship between it and the other boxes, there would be no way for us to determine the yellow lemon as an external object otherwise.

---

1. Viking thought experiment; if I take an axe and plunge it into a conscious living human head, then clasp my hands onto the split skull and open it up exposing the brains innards; would I see anything which resembles the mental experience? Would I literally see colours and if spliced carefully in some manner, would I see the image in our minds eye as if displayed on a monitor?
   If I looked at it in every possible manner, through a microscope or via any instrumentation [remember that the colours on a screen are not in the brain, or that screen, but are in the mind], would I see what I am seeing? Would there be words in there, concepts, any quale et al?

2. If we take Leibnitz example; if the mind was a room, it would be completely empty. The mind only experiences quale when it is directed to either by the senses or the imagination [I wont go into the latter here], otherwise quale do not occur and the mind is empty.

.

[anthropo-eccentricis (anthropo-eccentricism)]

@Amorphos

here must be a way in which the mind reads input from the material, that ability, ‘to recognise’ ‘to know’, is there for both the material and immaterial resolution-to-the-matter.

This isn’t very clear, but I take it that you imagine the mind as a sort of immaterial entity into which the material impresses itself, as input. Why make such an assumption, such a division? I won’t at all pretend to understand the rest of your post, but it seems to me that the problems dissolve if we conceptualize the mind as an emergent material entity, dependent on the complex network of material processes that we call the human body. Yellow isn’t in the lemon, and it isn’t in us; it’s in the relation or interaction between the two, the assemblage. Without yellow things, humans are without yellow; without those for whom it might give itself as coloured, the lemon is without yellow.

[Amorphos]

anthropo-eccentricism wrote; This isn’t very clear, but I take it that you imagine the mind as a sort of immaterial entity into which the material impresses itself, as input.

I do but I had left it open for both that and a material interpretation ~ one just has to add more to the material.

Probably everything is a division of one sort or another, why make a different distinction about us? I think that generally, whilst there is duality, its is complimented by relationships and by communications, info etc. on that ’assemblage’ I think we are agreed, but should add that for colour and other quale as emergent properties, that requires a transcendence in the quale by which it transmigrates form.

Rather dextrous things arent they!

.

[ZenKitty]

@anthropo-eccentricism

This isn’t very clear, but I take it that you imagine the mind as a sort of immaterial entity into which the material impresses itself, as input. Why make such an assumption, such a division? I won’t at all pretend to understand the rest of your post, but it seems to me that the problems dissolve if we conceptualize the mind as an emergent material entity, dependent on the complex network of material processes that we call the human body. Yellow isn’t in the lemon, and it isn’t in us; it’s in the relation or interaction between the two, the assemblage. Without yellow things, humans are without yellow; without those for whom it might give itself as coloured, the lemon is without yellow.

Why make things more complicated while having this based on a relation or interaction. This appears to create a third, instead of the previous two that formed the division that you brought up.

[Frankenstein]

Hello Good Sir,

@Amorphos

Probably everything is a division of one sort or another, why make a different distinction about us? I think that generally, whilst there is duality, its is complimented by relationships and by communications, info etc. on that ’assemblage’ I think we are agreed, but should add that for colour and other quale as emergent properties, that requires a transcendence in the quale by which it transmigrates form.

.

How do emergent properties “transcend” the material if they are material; wont these properties always be reducible to material, as you described them? therefore it would be an illusion to think anything really “transcends” the material world, primarily because the two substances wouldn’t be distinct.

Would it be better to claim a dual-aspect theory or a dualism, but one where one substance isn’t dependent on the other?

[Amorphos]

Frankenstein hi

How do emergent properties “transcend” the material if they are material; wont these properties always be reducible to material, as you described them? therefore it would be an illusion to think anything really “transcends” the material world, primarily because the two substances wouldn’t be distinct.
Would it be better to claim a dual-aspect theory or a dualism, but one where one substance isn’t dependent on the other?

In the third box [and [1]] we have the perceived colour, yet we clearly don’t see it literally in the physical. Actually in each case ~ as far as I know, there is no colour, thus the colour itself cannot be said to be in any of the boxes, but occurs respective to each. Hence colour is an emergent quality in accordance with the dictum of the physical and mental states. I.e. if x occurs in any of the physical areas, then colour quality will occur respectively.

I am unsure if mental colour quale can occur as some manner of projection of the mind, in terms of say, dreams. In my study of it, if you don’t have any physical light [box 1] then you don’t get imagined or perceived light. Its almost as if the mind can shape the photonic colour. Strangely, photons are transparent and hence colour itself isn’t directly in there too.

It’s a bit of a conundrum, an analogy would be that light and colour is like a river, it interacts or emerges relative to photons first, then whatever they interact with, e.g. electrical signals, then again how that is transformed by the perception.

If the mind was like a camcorder, that kinda makes sense.

I could be wrong in all that, I am just trying to think it through, but to me it appears that the physical informs the non physical, both are emergent.

.

[Frankenstein]

@Amorphos

I am unsure if mental colour quale can occur as some manner of projection of the mind, in terms of say, dreams. In my study of it, if you don’t have any physical light [box 1] then you don’t get imagined or perceived light. Its almost as if the mind can shape the photonic colour. Strangely, photons are transparent and hence colour itself isn’t directly in there too.

It’s a bit of a conundrum, an analogy would be that light and colour is like a river, it interacts or emerges relative to photons first, then whatever they interact with, e.g. electrical signals, then again how that is transformed by the perception.

If the mind was like a camcorder, that kinda makes sense.

I could be wrong in all that, I am just trying to think it through, but to me it appears that the physical informs the non physical, both are emergent.

.

Are you stating that one can’t imagine a color, for instance-- a blue sky? If I’m reading you right, I think your saying that one needs actual light to imagine a color, is this right?

[finishedman]

@Frankenstein

Are you stating that one can’t imagine a color, for instance-- a blue sky? If I’m reading you right, I think your saying that one needs actual light to imagine a color, is this right?

@anthropo-eccentricism

Yellow isn’t in the lemon, and it isn’t in us; it’s in the relation or interaction between the two, the assemblage. Without yellow things, humans are without yellow; without those for whom it might give itself as coloured, the lemon is without yellow.

Those two quotes are important.

There is light. If the light is not there you have no way of looking at anything. The light falls on an object, and the reflection of that light activates the optic nerves, which in turn activate the memory cells. When the memory cells are activated, all the knowledge you have about that object comes into cooperation. It is that process which is happening there that has created the subject. And the subject is the knowledge you have about it.

So, not only the “I” but all the physical sensations are involved in this. Sound, the olfactory nerves, smell, and the sense of touch, the operation of any one of these sensations necessarily creates the subject. It’s not one continuous subject which is gathering all these experiences, piling them up together, and then saying “this is me,” but everything is discontinuous and disconnected.

[Amorphos]

Frankenstein

Are you stating that one can’t imagine a color, for instance-- a blue sky? If I’m reading you right, I think your saying that one needs actual light to imagine a color, is this right?

When I imagine a blue sky, I don’t see a blue sky. If I was on LSD then I possibly would see the blue sky I was imagining. If though I was in a completely blacked out room, then even on LSD I don’t think I would see the blue sky. [I’ve tested that out too! ~ but I may be wrong]

Consider how the perception distorts vision e.g. in optical illusions, and how dreams or memories can affect what we see in the minds eye. It is as if the mind can take any light source and manipulate it to form any vision it want to see.

I don’t know if say, there was only a red light source, if we can see other colours. Or as I say if there is no light source we’d see anything.

To make things worse, I have seen experiments where people can see [a little] by using sensory information from the ears or even the tongue. If all light sources [to eliminate ‘blind-sight’ etc] were removed, would those test patients still see something?

If true that means the mind can literally produce colour!

Then that colour occurs under any conditions which require it; so photons and electrical signals can ‘produce’ colour?

finishedman

There is light. If the light is not there you have no way of looking at anything. The light falls on an object, and the reflection of that light activates the optic nerves, which in turn activate the memory cells. When the memory cells are activated, all the knowledge you have about that object comes into cooperation. It is that process which is happening there that has created the subject. And the subject is the knowledge you have about it.

A TV does not require all of those conditions [if you believe a TV emits colour].

.

[finishedman]

Memory is stored in the brain in a chemical form. The whole human body functions as a stimulus-response system. What there is is only a response to a stimulus. If the response is not translated, then the situation is analogous to transferring information from one floppy disc to another. There is no link up here. Each is an independent frame. Translating sensory perceptions into images is from some sort of input. When I do not look at you how can I create an image of yours? The creation of images born out of imagination can be culturally induced. The brain translates the sensory perceptions into the framework of memory. Memory is not a constant factor. When light falls on the retina creating an image, the sensory impulses are carried through the optic nerve to the brain that re-creates the image by memory. Suppose the brain does not translate the frame of the object falling on the retina, there is no way to perceive the object.

There is no picture on the TV screen at all. What we really see is a collection of dots in frames. There is an illusion that somebody is looking at it. It is the neurons that put the dots and create a picture.

[finishedman]

@Amorphos

A TV does not require all of those conditions [if you believe a TV emits colour].

Again, I would refer you back to this post…

@anthropo-eccentricism

Without yellow things, humans are without yellow; without those for whom it might give itself as coloured, the lemon is without yellow.

[Amorphos]

Untrue see third illusion below…

Cool optical illusions! You gotta see these…
blogs.discovermagazine.com/badas … e-you-mad/
blogs.discovermagazine.com/badas … our-brain/
blogs.discovermagazine.com/badas … the-green/

some stuff I found on blind LSD experiments…

a remarkable 1963 study [pdf] from the Archives of Opthalmology in which 24 blind participants took LSD to see if they could experience visual hallucinations.
It turns out, they can, although this seems largely to be the case in blind people who had several years of sight to begin with, but who later lost their vision.
dangerousminds.net/comments/ … ate_on_lsd

This subject was noted to have spontaneous visual activity.

Forrer and Goldnerr gave LSD, 1 microgram per kilogram to 2 blind volunteers, both of whom had suffered destruction of the optic nerves. Neither reported visual hallucinations, no mention was made of prior spontaneous hallucinations, and no mention was made of prior spontaneous visual activity.
mindhacks.com/2009/11/18/do-blin … te-on-lsd/

Apparently this film says it all, but I havent watched it [2hrs 36mins]
topdocumentaryfilms.com/cracking … lour-code/

.

[Amorphos]

Memory is stored in the brain in a chemical form. The whole human body functions as a stimulus-response system. What there is is only a response to a stimulus. If the response is not translated, then the situation is analogous to transferring information from one floppy disc to another. There is no link up here. Each is an independent frame. Translating sensory perceptions into images is from some sort of input. When I do not look at you how can I create an image of yours? The creation of images born out of imagination can be culturally induced. The brain translates the sensory perceptions into the framework of memory. Memory is not a constant factor. When light falls on the retina creating an image, the sensory impulses are carried through the optic nerve to the brain that re-creates the image by memory. Suppose the brain does not translate the frame of the object falling on the retina, there is no way to perceive the object.

I agree, but none of this says where or what colour is, here we are describing how it can be manipulated by the instrumentation of the senses ~ different debate to op really. Interesting though, so thanks!

[finishedman]

@Amorphos

I agree, but none of this says where or what colour is, here we are describing how it can be manipulated by the instrumentation of the senses

This is a problem with understanding as well. All we can do is interpret the signals. Yet, that does not allow us to arrive at a perfect understanding of why or how it happens. We control and manipulate (use) the interpretations to get what we want.

Thought presents problems but is often ineffective in solving them. Hence, we engage in trying to unravel enigmas and more serious dilemmas by utilizing the same instrument that got us into the mess in the first place.

[finishedman]

Q

You have been separated from the phenomenon and is why you’re asking questions about it. Can you sense this separation? But, you are not one thing and the life of your senses another. You are not a discrete entity from your life. It’s all one unitary movement. Life is aware of itself. That’s’ why I so often call attention to the intelligence of the complete human organism as being far superior to the intellect’s ability to understand what the heck is going on. You don’t have to be aware of the details concerning it’s functioning for life to operate. Unless you are separated from what is going on around you or inside of you, you will not ask anything about what you do not know. To know is to be and to be is to be other than – via information you acquired. The information and knowledge you posses gives you a point of reference and all around you is the known. That’s the separation, without which ‘you’ would not exist.

[Amorphos]

Interesting stuff as ever finishedman. I agree I don’t need to be aware of everything going on in the whole being. I do want to be aware about what I can of reality, and for me the op appears to smash reality into oblivion ~ or at least the worldview we hold about it.

I will try to find some more data on colour and mind, but all I am getting so far is the same ole stuff; science says the brain/perception changes colours brought to it by the senses, but it doesn’t explain what that then means.
What is colour?
Where is colour?

Science simply isn’t giving us any answers to this issue.

.

[Amorphos]

This is interesting…

Each subject was asked to tune the color of a disk of light to produce a pure yellow light that was neither reddish yellow nor greenish yellow. Everyone selected nearly the same wavelength of yellow, showing an obvious consensus over what color they perceived yellow to be. Once Williams looked into their eyes, however, he was surprised to see that the number of long- and middle-wavelength cones—the cones that detect red, green, and yellow—were sometimes profusely scattered throughout the retina, and sometimes barely evident. The discrepancy was more than a 40:1 ratio, yet all the volunteers were apparently seeing the same color yellow.

“Those early experiments showed that everyone we tested has the same color experience despite this really profound difference in the front-end of their visual system,” says Hofer. “That points to some kind of normalization or auto-calibration mechanism—some kind of circuit in the brain that balances the colors for you no matter what the hardware is.”

sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 082313.htm

These experiments show that color is defined by our experience in the world, and since we all share the same world, we arrive at the same definition of colors."

For me these experiments show that there is no direct correlation between what the hardware receives, and what the ‘calibrators’ in the brain decides the colour should be? In other words, we make colour up but not based on anything external. Strange how we nearly all arrive at the same conclusions about the world? I suppose its corroborative, over time we find a common ground, this is yellow, that is blue. On the other hand far simpler life-forms with simple orifices for eyes, wouldn’t have the cognitive ability and probably get a simple direct input concerning colours of objects. Then perhaps this theme is continued throughout evolutionary development ~ due to its usefulness.

• morf

[Amorphos]

It appears that colour is ‘made up by the brain’;

“Color is in the brain. It is constructed, just as the meanings of words are constructed. Without the neural processes of the brain, we wouldn’t be able to understand colors of objects any more than we could understand words of a language we hear but don’t know,”

said Steven Shevell, a University of Chicago psychologist who specializes on color and vision.

sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 164231.htm

[finishedman]

@Amorphos

It appears that colour is ‘made up by the brain’;

@anthropo-eccentricism

… without those for whom it might give itself as coloured, the lemon is without yellow.

Perfect combo of quotes …… color is then a result of a mental process. No brain to detect it → no perception → no color.
It makes you wonder if reality, like color, is plainly there for the senses to take in. If there exists a totality of real things in the world, independent of people’s knowledge or perception of them, then a properly calibrated sensory apparatus should be able to detect it. However, concrete objects are one thing and abstractions another. So then, where in the brain are intricate concepts and sophisticated thoughts?

[Amorphos]

Perfect combo of quotes …… color is then a result of a mental process. No brain to detect it → no perception → no color.

I’ll refer you to the Viking thought experiment on the op. how the brain interprets colour is a physical process, what and where colour is, is not. We don’t find colour in the brain ~ if you cut the brain open would you literally see the image of the world that you are seeing now? No.

It makes you wonder if reality, like color, is plainly there for the senses to take in. If there exists a totality of real things in the world, independent of people’s knowledge or perception of them, then a properly calibrated sensory apparatus should be able to detect it.

I think there is such a totality in objects, but colour and other mental quale transmigrate [move across/between] that. They bust reality open at its seams!

However, concrete objects are one thing and abstractions another. So then, where in the brain are intricate concepts and sophisticated thoughts?

I don’t think they are in the brain et al, same as colour and other quale. The brain supplements and informs [collocatively] them, yet visual and conceptual info are purely mental ~ aside from the goo and em our brains are made up of. Though I am not sure if you can have one without the other ~ info works in communicative relationships.

.