ORFNUGEN6 wrote in message <19990718113519.04352.00002152 at ng-cf1.aol.com>...
>"Ken Collins" <KPaulC at email.msn.com> wrote:
>> the 'color blue' is precisely defined in terms of it's
>> electromagnetic spectrum, and the correlated energy-flow.
>>Your problem is that you are confusing the cause
>with its effect.
i used to (a couple of decades ago) uncritically take a similar approach,
and i carried it forward a bit, unquestioned, but it is naive.
>EM is the common abbreviation for electromagnetic
>radiation.
>>Color is not a physical phenomenon. We all call EM
>of a certain frequency "blue," and we each know what
>we experience when we encounter EM of this frequency.
>But we may each be experiencing something different.
>What blacks perceive as red, Asians may perceive
>as blue, and another specie of animal might perceive
>as some color never before experienced by man.
some folks are 'color blind', and their nervous systems do process the
energy-flows inherent in EM differently, and, therefore, they do experience
'color' differently, but 'color' is still the same-stuff... the result of
'molecular' processes being driven by rigorously proportioned energy flows.
as with anything else, one can choose to call the energy-flow inherent in
'blue' light anything one wishes, but doing so does not change the
energy-flow inherent.
if the energy-flow inherent is other than the energy-flow that's rigorously
coupled to 'blue' EM then, no matter what one calls it, one will experience
other than the color 'blue'.
if a = b and b = c, then a = c.
it doesn't matter what one calls 'a', 'b' and 'c'... =except= if folks give
way to the automation which stereotypically accompanies encounters with
disparate 'finitizations (AoK, Ap 4, 5, 7, 8).
>Perceived colors naturally form a wheel.
be-cause of RGB summation, perceived colors form a summation field.
>EM radiation is linear.
one needs to provide more information before one can characterize EM as you
have, but EM's driving of of 'atomic' and 'molecular' processes is
nonlinear.
>The color violet has a considerable about of red
>in it. In our perception, violet is exactly halfway between
>between red and blue. Yet in terms of EM, violet is at the
>opposite end of the spectrum from red. In terms of EM
>radiation, green and yellow are all closer to red than violet
>is to red. Yet, we percieve violet as being closer to red than
>yellow and green. Colors are different from the wavelengths
>of light that produce them. All frequencies of light are
>inherently colorless.
that's why one must discuss in terms of inherent energy-flows, which are
rigorously coupled to 'atomic' and 'molecular' energy-flows.
>You can be made to see color even when no EM is present.
but not when no energy-flow in present.
>And you can be made to see blue when are shown light which
>you are used to calling red.
only if the net energy-flow is rigorously coupled to the 'molecular'
energy-flow that's rigorously coupled to 'blue'.
>You equate the color red with a
>specific wavelength of light because in your life these two
>phenomenon have a 100% correlation rate.
no, i do so because of the rigorous energy-flows inherent.
>In fact, a specific
>wavelength of light does CAUSE you to experience a specific
>color sensation.
:-)
>But there is a difference between the color
>you are sensing and the EM radiation that is producing that
>color in your brain.
there's also 'a difference' between an 'English muffin' and a 'blueberry
muffin', yet they are 'just' their respective energy-flow dynamics, and i
distinguish between the two by analyzing the different energy-flows
inherent.
it doesn't matter what one calls the two 'entities'... there're different
verbal-symbol to connote the 'same stuff' in different cultures [quotes
around "same-stuff" because the net energy-flow that occurs =is= dependent
upon experience... this's why it's often difficult to translate between
languages... before one can experience the same-stuff, one must experience
the totality of the other culture.]
>The color blue only exists in the human brain. If Earth
>were invaded by aliens who sensed different frequencies
>of light as different sounds or other sensation we can't
>imagine, and all life forms on Earth were destroyed, colors
>such as red, blue and green would cease to exist in the
>universe, unless there were another species somewhere
>with brains nearly identical to ours.
there're man-made sensors that do all of this already. what distinguishes
them is their 'atomic' and 'molecular' energy-flow dynamics. they do not,
somehow, eliminate any energy-flow dynamics... they just select different
energy-flow dynamics.
the physical chemistry of different humans can also select different
energy-flow dynamics, and energy-flow within individual physical chemistry
can be different, but such still does not alter the external energy-flow...
it's still there... except following discussions like the one we're having,
which do send out different, altered, energy-flows... but these differences
are inherent in stuff other than the energy-flows that are rigorously
coupled to 'blue'... they occur as a function of differences within physical
chemistry, and are modifiable via experience, wear-and-tear within the
biology, and other energy-flows such as the much-larger energy-flow dynamics
inherent in our discordant discussion... but the energy-flow that's
rigorously coupled to 'blue' just goes its merry way, regardless.
it is a bit of a subtle difference, but it's of exceeding importance because
folks murder one another because the difference has gone uncomprehended.
>Just because a computer is able to distinguish different
>frequencies of light doesn't mean the computer is seeing
>the colors red, blue and green. Green light is not green.
>It is our brain's interaction with green light that produces
>the color green in our brain.
within a man-made sensor, the correlation to energy-flows is exact.
>And so this is with all our perceptions of taste, sound,
>feeling, self-awareness, and emotions. A computer can
>be made self-aware in the same way it can be made
>to see the color green. This is not true self-awareness.
ah... we get to the gist of what you're saying... that humans are, somehow,
special.
while not arguing that humans are not special, i can make a computer as
self-aware as any human... doing so does not, soehow, diminish the
specialness of humans. Science Honors humanness when it emulates stuff
that's human. Science's efforts to do so can also alter humanness, in an
experiential way, as i've discussed above.
what Science cannot do is alter the 'atomic' and 'molecular' dynamice that
are rigorously coupled to particular energy-flows. this's why it's the
energy-flows that are the stuff that matters.
>This is not to say that computers will never be self-aware.
>But this self-awareness will require something that we
>don't quite understand how to generate at this point.
it's been understood for more than two decades. if someone pays my expenses
[i've lost my source of income, otherwise i'd not ask] i'll gladly give an
in-person presentation.
guess what?
when all is said and done, God doesn't even hiccup. God ain't 'afraid' of
Science... seek Truth, find God.
>Complex computers are no more conscious than a simple
>calculator. It is a fallacy to believe that complexity and
>intelligence will lead to consciousness.
it's a fallacy to assert that words dictate to physical reality.
and it's good to understand the difference inherent because failing to do so
precipitates Tragedy within human affairs.
cheers, ken collins
