Tore Lund wrote in message <37930CD5.7559 at online.no>...
>Ken Collins wrote:
>>>> ORFNUGEN6 wrote:
>> >
>> >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'.
>>Take the old experiment (alluded to by ORFUGEN6, I think) where we light
>a candle at sunset and let some object cast a shadow on a table. The
>sunlight is red, the light from the candle is yellow, and the color of
>the shadow is BLUE. What sort of "molecular energy-flow" will be the
>same for this blue shadow and another patch of the same blue produced by
>using blue light?
the energy-flow that is in the EM radiation that traverses from the
environment to the rods and cones, as a function of the EM radiation that
has, during the relatively-recent past, traversed from the environment to
the rods and the cones.
the rods and cones can only transduce the energy that impinges upon them,
including any internal feedback that their ganglia, and other intermediate
visual 'way stations' receive.
take the 'spinning black & white striped disk which yields the 'perception'
of color' optical illusion. it's my position that the color that's perceived
is still a function of the EM that's received... it's just that the
character of the EM is averaged with respect to the 2nd frequency that's
produced by the spinning of the black & white disk.
if i'm missing something, please educate me, but, to be forthright, i just
don't see that there exists any 'problem'... it's all just EM being
transduced by the visual sensory apparatus, within the operating parameters
of that apparatus.
>>If your "energy-flow" handles this situation, then I'd like to hear more
>about it. Maybe you have web site
i've no web site.
basically, the 'argument' reduces to the question of whether or not there
exists an Objective Physical Reality.
my position is that Objective Physical Reality exists.
others hold that individual consciousness 'determines' 'physical reality'...
that only 'Subjective Physical Reality' 'exists'.
this results from a minor confusion that stems from the fact that, while
it's True that individual experience does modify individual nervous systems,
and, so, the 'perception' that an individual nervous system enables is also
individually-unique, this individual-uniqueness follows from the fact that
an individual's =experience= of the one Objective Physical Reality is
unique, not from any 'absence' of the one Objective Physical Reality.
this small 'difficulty' can be overcome through the performance of physical
work entailing acquiring, as far as is possible, mutually-inclusive
experience by all individuals involved.
such mutually-inclusive experience, although always incompletely, will, to
the degree of the physical work output, always allow individuals to draw
closer to mutually-inclusive 'perception' and 'consciousness'.
the fact that such convergence is =always= possible points directly to the
existence of one Objective Physical Reality.
=all= available experimental evidence substantiates the position that this
one Objective Physical Reality is 'mapped' completely by the one-way flow of
energy from order to disorder that is what's described by 2nd Thermo
(wdb2t).
so all that's necessary to converge upon the one Objective Physical Reality
is to follow wdb2t's 'map'... two, many, all individuals can do this in the
same way, so it doesn't matter that 'perception' is individually-unique
be-cause experience is individually-unique... individuals can =always=
follow the one wdb2t 'map' and interpolate with respect to consistent
'discrepancies' among individual 'perceptions'.
if one looks at the same-stuff through a 'thought-'lens'', in which,
hypothetically, 'there exists no Objective Physical Reality', one arrives
immediately at the realization that =any= consistent behavior is
'impossible', even for individuals.
cheers, ken collins
