Rather than just say: ibid, I'll simply make 2 points. 1) We're in the philosophy section; that 'dictionary' is invalid. 2) Interesting, but inconclusive. In any case, what we're seeing effected here is one's awareness (or recollection) of perception, not their perception.
Patty-Rick: "just noticed P J just said 'Nor can we imagine a whole different colour.' guess we are on the same wavelength excuse the pun " Ha! I loved that. But yes, it does indeed seem. But yes, I would agree that we cannot convey qualia. As Mao Zedong said: "If you want to know the taste of a pear, you must change the pear by eating it yourself." "qualia, new concept to me thanks i have some reading to do... your example doesnt really work though, if he knows one is missing he knows there should be one there and thus knows what it is, if he had never seen the shade before then he wouldnt know one is missing... and i said explain without reference to other colours " One might assume that by being absent in the continuum of the blue colorus one could tell that it is missing by the interruption of progression. Invert_Nexus: "Rocky, from Mask, demonstrated colors to a blind girl by using ice for blue. I forget the rest. But, it was a stupid concept. One which doesn't truly fly. But, it sure does play great on the big screen... what a tearjerker..." That was a very good scene and actually provoked the the first time I seriously thought philosophically about colours and perception. Glaucon: "I admit that there is certainly sensory data. As for mind, depending on the definition, I will concede that we're all talking about the same basic concept. However, I am indeed suggesting that processed sensory data does not produce mental images. I could go on for quite a long time on this issue alone, but let this suffice: an image is a 'fixed' entity. By that I mean that any alteration (active or passive) to the image changes its representative power to the point where it indeed becomes a different image. That being said, perception is a dynamic activity, one that cannot be controlled: this is the immediacy of perception. When we speak of a mental image then, I would argue that this is a post hoc effect, quite apart from perception. To sum up, an image is created by the mind, rather than 'given' to us via perception. [I know... I've moved way too far into semiotics and Kant here...lol]" Let me be sure I understand you properly. Are you presenting a view whereby the mind immediatly interprets and thus changes the sensory image, or where it uses Kantian categories to take raw sensory data from the Ding an Sich and make it presentable to the mind? And do you assert that this interpretation is not based at all on the perception or could exist in the absence of said perception, or only that the sensory data provokes such interpretation and that it somewhat (if not fully) accords with it? Or are you actually just saying that sensory data, by being fed in constantly, is not subject to the "mental image" label as it is not a species of imagination? Because clearly you aren't claiming that we do not perceive things, yes? "Ahhh. Now I am in complete agreement with you. Indeed there is no image of colour. And of course, a computer (or even a spectrophotometer) never 'sees' pink. Nicely explicated." My thanks. "Interesting. Personally, I would argue that we are the ones who create the image, as our experiences have taught us to. What would you say about those people blind from birth? If given sight somehow, would their eyes perceive light, would they identify and react to colour? I say they would. But, in the beginning, they would have to be taught the names of colours, and how to identify different colours. And it is this very task that allows us to close our eyes and 'picture' a colour. " To what extent do you imagine we create the image? And as to the blind from birth, I would agree with you that they would assuredly identify and react to colour, and yes, they'd certainly have to learn the names of each colour (just as we do when we're very young). But I am not so sure they'd have to be taught how to identify the colour, as the image of colour is pronounced enough to allow anyone for one to identify and distinguish different colours, even if one does not know the names, easily. That is to say, green looks very different from red, blue from yellow. This should not be a great problem for him. perplexity: "http://www.johnsadowski.com/big_spanish_castle.html Stare at the image for a long time for best effect." That is the coolest thing I have ever seen in a long while. Thanks for sharing! "“ Recently an increasing amount of research has been conducted on the cognitive processes of the brain while under hypnosis. This research boom stems from questions regarding perception needing answers. It was found through trials and experiments addressing the mind under hypnosis that the body is able to perform and the mind is able to perceive things otherwise unperceivable or doable in the conscious state.... ” " Does the article explain a few of these things? "Not to mention hallucinogenic drugs and acupuncture." Accupuncture altering perception? I have received acupuncture numerous times and not received any such things.
I would have to agree with Glaucon, though. This may alter perception, but does not change the process of perception.
Perplexity: "Acid trippers commonly report a heightening of the sensation of colour in an extremely immediate sense; the sensation of sight vibrates with the beat of the heart and the rhythm of breathing. " Yet one is still perceiving, if not more "vividly".
It's impossible to describe how a color looks. Take a person who's been blind from birth. This person can be the most knowledgable person in the world about color in terms of wavelengths, the eye, and the brain --but this person would never know <I> how</I> color looks. Nor could you explain to this person how color looks. This philosophical notion of <I>how</I> something looks, feels, sounds, smells, tastes is commonly referred to as qualia. For more info, take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia
Perplexity: Glaucon's argument was that the process of perception is beyond tampering with. No matter what one does, we still receive the same data, it is only how that data is interpreted that is changed.
Exactly. Thanks P-J. Basically, what I'm supporting here is Kant's concept of apperception: we are physical creatures with various means of gathering sensory data, data that we are constantly 'bombarded' with. But, our ability to handle this massive assault of data is only possible by selectively processing and organizing the data.
Perplexity: "I therefore point out that we do not receive the same data and it is certainly may be tampered with. Tampering would indeed be a fair description of the effect of an hullicinogenic drug." A hallucinogenic drug - as well as various other things such as what you have mentioned - only alters the interpretation of said data on the foundation that in every instance, the same signals are being sent to the brain. That is to say, even if the dog appears to warp and move about in one's LSD spiral, the dog is actually being perceived the same way, but the brain itself is warping the image.
Perplexity: "The signals are sent to the brain via synapse connections (nerve cells) which are directly affected. The effect of LSD is thus largely because too much is sent to the brain; the filtering mechanism is tampered with and the brain is overloaded." Actually, neuro-transmitters are a bit different than what you are thinking about. Neurotransmitters, such as serotonin and norepinephrine , are types of chemicals which aren't used to facillitate perception, but which are used to trigger reactions in the brain and body. Serotonin impacts the brain by triggering various reactions in parts of the brain which would not be used at certain times.
If you hold that we do not receive the same data, then the onus is upon you to account for this. Some sort of 'subjective' denial of ontological reality? And the accompanying refutation of the past 100 years of physical science. And with respect to the effects of hallicuniogenic drugs etc., abberations do not make the rule. Rather, they are just that. There is a source to our sensory data. The means by which we receive this data is beyond our control. What we choose to do with this data is within the realm of our control. perplexity, you seem to be having a problem with both the first and second statement here, both of which are fully substantiated by current science.
I did indeed read your posts and the links. None of this accounts for some 'other-physics'. I did. Surely you can realize that being under the influence of an hallucinogenic does not constitute the normal state of perception.... As I've already pointed out, this is not control of the data, merely control of reception.
According to a universal chart of colors (the title of which escapes me at thist time, though it was written and demonstrated by a German author and is a standard reference book), all colors (red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and violent) evoke the same feeling from all people of all cultures. Color, among other things, therefore, is that which evokes a feeling.
Perplexity: "LOL. Not according to this: http://www.escrs.org/eurotimes/November2002/visual.asp i.e. Visual prostheses use neurotransmitter retinal chips to stimulate retinal function If a man made device to replace the retinal function is not tampering with perception, then I don't know what is. This is what I was thinking about: http://www.escrs.org/eurotimes/November2002/visual.asp" Um, the article doesn't state a single thing about neurotransmitters as the primarily carriers of visual stimuli? They reference the retina, they reference neurotransmitters in regards to the neural pathways (I never claimed this wasn't the case as obviously they are necessary for the neural system) but a neurotransmitter is not related to perception in and of itself. Moreover, this is going besides the point. Even if what the information is being interpreted differently - which is precisely what the alteration of how the visual processing centres is - the information and the act of perceiving is not changed. Furthermore, even if we assume that it -is-, one is still perceiving, hence the process can be construed as being -the same thing-. That is, we can say that both humans and flies perceive, despite the fact that there is a likely huge difference in the qualia which they experience by virtue of their different systems. "Did you ever take an hallucinogenic drug? I know what happens, from experience, and I did my homework." No, I never have.
No doubt. Some other models of the eye in nature have the optic nerve attached to the rear of the retina, so that it doesn't have to exit THROUGH the retinal wall. How come we don't have this superior version of the eyeball? Because ours works ~just good enough~, no more. And nowhere near perfection. It also shows that the eye evolved at least more than once, independently, demonstrating that it isn't the massive "Climp up Mount Improbable" that mystics love to pretend that it is.
