Mind - Knowledge -- Knowledge - Mind

It may, an apple CAN be red and green all over, if, for instance observed under a different light.

Wouldn’t it take at least two observers to note that change of color as a fact?

Irrellus says:

“Wouldn’t it take at least two observers to note that change of color as a fact?”

That is precisely the issue: 2 observers may see simulations of color, the simulation consistent with the perception of one observer seeing a red apple, while the 2nd observer sees green, and a 3rd observing bot red and green .

_
Can the colour of an object change intrinsically so tho… regardless of our observation of it?

No!

Animals and plants that change their color change it to their immediate environment for protection from predators. Two humans can agree that this is the case. Perhaps the ability to detect these changes is due to superior cones in the human retina. Color, after all, according to physics, is an illusion made when sunlight shines on an object. This is why we do not detect colors in the dim light of the moon. The message of color is transported along the optic nerve to places in the brain. It amazes me that we are constructed in such a way as to detect color and color changes. This still does not imply the existence of color in itself. In this instance knowledge is the functioning of the brain as gatherer of information. Mind is where the knowledge is kept and used.

There is a problem with the sunlight makes detectable color illusions. It is with neon lights or other artificial light sources. That we can create color is evidence of an intrinsic understanding of color. It remains, however, evident that there is no evidence of color as a thing in itself.

Yes, but what neuroscience has not done yet is translate the observed activity into the language that you and I use to communicate with and furthermore use to exchange information which in turn helps us build knowledge. Neuroscience knows about the connections but does not know how information is processed. This is a slightly more complicated process than mapping the human genome. So far we are able to build mathematical models that give us some insight; insight such as the possibility that information isn’t just processed in a static network of neurons but some of that information is passed along into other networks. I believe knowledge is stored in the brain matter and I believe we can explain things well enough to know that the perceived mind is just a by-product of the brain but this by no means destroys the current value of psychology. Psychology and before that philosophy gave us many insights into what was happening. For the time being the “perceived mind” is our most accurate interface to the knowledge stored in the brain.

Colours are specific chemical compounds, so an animal or plant changing colour does not change that fact… of a specific colour, being of a specific chemical compound, because they change their chemical compounds in order to change their colour.

Colour… and the world in general, is still an amazing place to feel awe over.

On a side note, I have always thought of Richard Dawkins as a bit of a clown and somewhat of a troll(he is a really smart guy though). Don’t get me wrong I have enjoyed watching his many arguments with religious folk. He becomes very animated and provides a lot of entertainment value. I nearly put him in the same category as Neil deGrasse Tyson but in two different fields of course and Neil is less of a troll. I am pretty certain that he settled upon what he believes while the rest of the world continues to make discoveries that go against his concepts. And while memes make a good analogy to genes the two systems do work along totally separate timelines. The other thing either do not seem to share, is some sort of biological morphology. Yes, that is quite the disparity between a gene and a meme. Anyway, you can package concepts how you like and they probably still contain an element of truth(to what degree???).

I will often stretch my imagination to solve a problem and then abandon the concept that helped me to solve the problem.

A glossary of concepts would be handy - even though sometimes the same term may be used for several different definitions. I am of course referring to those little disposable problem solvers that we all use for a quick fix.

I read a couple of Dawkins’ books, but none on religion. From where does Dawkins believe religious memes come? I see most memes, especially the archetypal variety, as analogies of experienced physical processes. e.g. the Garden of Eden story in which Adam, Eve and Serpent represent aspects of the human psyche engaged in the “fall into mind”, the fall from the Eden of pure instinct to the world of personal responsibility for all actions. Serpent=the id; Eve=ego; Adam= the superego. Freud believed that the space of time between instinct and action evolved for a being to make decisions of the best possible course of action. I think it was Damasio who coined the phrase “the fall into mind.”

For beings without brains or those who have not evolved to have brains the force of instinct is knowledge. Perception requires having a brain that can receive information regarding what is outside the brain and can act according to what it receives. I often ask- what did the first ever organism “know” what to eat? That’s a “knowledge” that is purely chemical. It becomes apparent that the roots of knowledge begin in biochemical reactions. So the evolution of knowledge is from chemical reactions, to instinct, to perception, to analogous memes.

Ive been thinking on how to address this since it was posted, given the open form of the inquiry there is no direct answer; I would now be able to add that there should be a third notion, on top of knowledge and mind, that clarifies their relation.

Mind forms the capacity of knowledge, knowledge the capacity of mind.

Capacity implies certain things, most importantly perhaps, purpose.

Can knowledge exist without having a function to a purpose
(And thus does unwanted knowledge create undesired purposes -

Which kinds of things does a particular mind seek to know? What registers as quality, what registers as noise? What ‘sticks to the mind’, what is allowed to be known, and what is refused?
knowledge and mind as a pair do not suffice, if we scrutinize like this, to identify what thinking consists of. Mind is not cognate with will, or is will sufficient to mind - mind is as the circumference of will that is at the same time its cosmic leverage
because mind can be stored, and will can not;
knowledge of the will would seem impossible - experience of the will simply does not translate into knowledge. Mind must always guess as to the wills direction; to bring mind and will in concert as a human being is thus not a methodical practice in the outset, but an intuitive and speculative one - much like the deep state attempts in its effort to unite capacity and purpose -
capacity in the sense of actionable knowledge, which is usually referred to as ‘intelligence’ -that which is understood by a power so as to be able to be its consequence.

To become the consequence of ones knowledge - that is the greatest fear and the purpose of the mind. To ‘lose ones mind’ by virtue of the sheer actionability of ones knowledge - psychosis -
to operate at the threshold of knowledge and action is to be quite crazy - mind endures knowledge, knowledge tests mind of its capacity. Knowledge the sword, mind the sky.

OK, nice FC, very nice.

So Meno and yourself both smelt something off about it. Originally there was only one clause as follows: knowledge clearly depends on the mind - I got this off of a Catholic site and as soon as I saw it…mmm…it is hard to describe how I felt about it, to be honest.
…but it was troubling…
…perhaps even more troubling is why I was at that site…

It turns out that it seemed easier to reverse it and place it with its original for contemplation.

When I did that, I thought, hmm, OK, let’s place it on ILP and see what happens since I was already having a discussion about something kind of related.
…but none of this really matters…

You have given me something to digest.

Its interesting because by placing the two statements underneath each other you demonstrated how mind results from pieces of knowledge, and now mind activates knowledge. Thinking as will is not a straightfoward process but rather an orchestrated series of restraints, withholding of definitive value-judgment. How do we juxtapose the issues at hand without a priori entangling them in conflict. How to contrast without contradiction.
Knowledge is not sufficient to power, but right handling of knowledge gives power, like handling electrical or chemical complements so as to cause voltage or exothermic reaction.

My answer and in turn progress is disappointing. I proceed one step at a time. Give thought to each piece of your writing.

There is no direct answer with only two notions and yes I too would add a third notion to solve the problem. I am still under the delusion that two notions are solvable but this is probably optimism talking or even hope to surface but one must keep their delusions in check otherwise we become too removed from reality. I have always kept at my side that language also creates its own problem and that we have a limitation that surfaces from the use of language but again there is a chance that this is also delusional thinking given that we may not know how close to the truth we are given the evidence of our already existent mental superpowers - we can see this in our everyday life when we look around at our creations and furthermore when we think about our achievements. The question still remains, how close are we? How advanced are our language and thinking? Are we there yet? Man…it is hard to know and hard to choose when our most common form of validation is communication with another man. Take the man out of the picture and logic our way through and we can still delude ourselves.

That being said I must now contemplate the third notion.
I must now step closer. From here I think about your suggested purpose/s before proceeding with the advocated scrutiny you have given.

Purpose is simple.

I’ll post it as an affirmation. Affirmations are shit you keep repeating that are obviously false in order to manifest it as true eventually. The perfect affirmation is this:

“We all live our desired experiences at nobodies expense”

Doing this requires changing the fundamental structure of all existence.

That’s the purpose we currently have that is noble.

Other than that meta purpose, we have just this: everyone (not just you or me) is trying to have a better day.

Ecmandu, how do you connect this back to knowledge? Are you talking about will here? as in, something like Kant’s maxims and laws

None of it. We need a new plan for existence. The rest is just harm reduction. Fuck Kant. When you know as much as I know, you realize that exclusiveness that is desirable is the definition of sin, and the definition of sin, is consent violation, that means existence itself is sin. I’ve seen people try to make their mark here. What makes a life interesting when life itself is sin, is to give life the middle finger and say, “fuck you, I’m not going to model you, I’m going to fight you, I’m going to violate as little consent as possible and make a different plan in the process”

That’s living.

Fuck you life!

I like it

I have been toying with curiosity for a number of years - it seems in a mathematical model of connected neurons that this network is unconsciously curious and curiosity bleeds into the mind - curiosity is a form of seeking. Obviously what is focused registers as quality but later this becomes segmented into remaining quality and noise. So nothing is truly refused but what is to be known as to be allowed and this is what sticks to the mind and most of the rest >sticks to the brain< I can not separate entirely mind from the brain and therefore there is a process of partial decay in both when what is refused undergoes some kind of diffusion. Something else that I have noticed is: curiosity seems to be somewhat deterministic - it is like a stream but instead of being subjected to gravity as the concept would imply it is subjected to unresolved entities - like a kind of general prediction that there must be something else there.