• tom
    1.5k
    This confuses two things. The ball is not red; the ball reflects electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength around 700 nm. "Red" is a label that humans give to that radiation when they see it. The human eye and the robot's circuits detect electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength around 700 nm. But, later in the chain, and only in the human, this simple act of detection becomes a perception, and that somehow leads to the conscious experience of Redness. The robot does not experience the latter.Pattern-chaser

    So, red objects reflect or emit photons of predominately red energy. Humans label photons of this energy (or the black-body spectrum centred on red) as "red".

    Robots can be programmed to do that too. They can even detect red, perceive it, and take action on that, including saying, "I perceive red" or driving off if it is a Tesla.

    What robots and even human brains (as bare physical objects) cannot do, is create "what-it-is-like" knowledge to see red - i.e. the red quale.

    If what we know about Reality is correct, robots could create the red quale, and humans do create the red quale. Both have sufficient hardware, so what is missing? Hint: it's not a soul.

    As a diversion, consider these remarkable facts about qualia: they cannot be predicted; they cannot be described.

    I happen to think the above observations are a profound hint as to their nature.
  • Pattern-chaser
    66
    So, red objects reflect or emit photons of predominately red energy. Humans label photons of this energy (or the black-body spectrum centred on red) as "red".tom

    Yes, and they go on to experience Redness, which I should've emphasised. :blush: Robots can't do that. Even if, one day, they become conscious - the robot version of consciousness - they won't experience Redness as humans do. Redness is a uniquely human experience.
  • tom
    1.5k
    Yes, and they go on to experience Redness, which I should've emphasised. :blush: Robots can't do that. Even if, one day, they become conscious - the robot version of consciousness - they won't experience Redness as humans do. Redness is a uniquely human experience.Pattern-chaser

    According to known physics, robots can experience everything a human can, and since their hardware is more flexible, they are quaranteed to possess the qualia of ultraviolet, and infrared.
  • Pattern-chaser
    66
    I suggest that physics is not a good yardstick in the consideration of qualia, and the like. Physics is about the Physical Universe, while qualia belong to the Conscious Universe. Physics cannot address qualia.
  • tom
    1.5k
    I suggest that physics is not a good yardstick in the consideration of qualia, and the like. Physics is about the Physical Universe, while qualia belong to the Conscious Universe. Physics cannot address qualia.Pattern-chaser

    But of course, you claim that certain objects in the physical universe, create the conscious universe, but have no clue how or why.

    Physics, however, has good arguments how and why.
  • Pattern-chaser
    66
    But of course, you claim that certain objects in the physical universe, create the conscious universe, but have no clue how or why.

    Physics, however, has good arguments how and why.
    tom

    Please state the good arguments physics has to offer concerning the Conscious Universe?
  • tom
    1.5k
    Please state the good arguments physics has to offer concerning the Conscious Universe?Pattern-chaser

    That has got to be the dumbest non-sequitur I have seen on this forum for several days!

    Now, you claim physical objects can create a separate conscious universe. Back it up or retract it.
  • Pattern-chaser
    66
    I haven't claimed that, I don't think, but it is something I believe to be true. But first, your introduction:

    You stated that physics has good arguments to offer concerning these matters. It is not unreasonable to ask you to reveal them. It is a stupid question, but only because physics cannot address the Conscious Universe any more than carpentry can address gravity.

    As for the rest, I believe that physical objects (human beings) create the Conscious Universe. And I have no more idea how than I have how the mind emerges from the brain. This is the mind-brain discussion, in different clothes, after all. Or maybe it's subject/object? These things all interlock. :wink:

    Now please state those arguments from physics, or retract your claim that they exist, to use your (somewhat abrupt) phraseology.
  • SteveKlinko
    177
    We know that the Redness of the snooker ball will ultimately produce particular Neural Activity in the Brain. The Neural Activity is what leads to the Conscious Red experience. We know this because, if these particular Neurons are stimulated in the right way by probing, then the same Conscious Red experience can be attained. Maybe not of a snooker ball but the experience will be of Redness.

    First, the research on visual cortical stimulation that I am aware of doesn't warrant such a claim to knowledge. For ethical reasons, the evidence base is exceedingly small, for one thing. Also, the reports of the actual subjects at most show that stimulation of the visual cortex is statistically correlated with reports of phosphenes, but even some of those reports involve the curious idea that these phosphenes - whatever they are - are colourless. If you have more recent and definitive research to back up your claim, I'd be interested if you could provide a link to it.
    Secondly, you mention yourself the redness of the snooker ball as the start of a supposedly causal story in vision - the end of that causal story is that I see the redness of the snooker ball. Nothing so far said requires the existence of any other instance of redness to enter the picture. The supposed neural activity you are talking about could simply be part of what goes on in opening us up to an actual feature of the environment.
    jkg20
    All you have to do is rub your eyes and you can see Lights. So we know that even that very external mechanical stimulation of the Visual system can create a Visual effect. Stands to reason that more direct probing inside the Brain will produce all kinds of Auditory, Visual, and Memory experiences. I thought this was realized by Science decades ago and is pretty much common knowledge by now.

    The snooker ball reflects Physical Light at a Wavelength of 680nm. This Physical Light has no Redness as a Property. It only has Wavelength. This Physical Light doesn't Look like anything. The Physical Light hits the Retina and is processed by the Brain to produce the Conscious Red Light (Qualia) that we actually See. The Conscious Red Light is what has the Property of Redness. We don't see Physical Light we only See the Surrogate that the Brain creates. When we dream about Red things we are Seeing our internal Conscious Red Light. No Physical Light exists when we See Red in a Dream. This is because the Red has always only been inside your Mind
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.