in order to escape the 'quagmire of subjectivity', an abstract analogue of
the 'point' you're discussing is needed.
use the objects of Analytical Geometry.
invite some friends over. before they arrive, place a cone, a pyramid, a
cube, and a sphere on a table surface.
move them about a bit, then move them about some more, to your suiting.
when your friends arrive, ask them to tell you what objects are on the
table.
they can easily do so.
now, ask them to describe the positions of the 4 objects before you arranged
them to your suiting.
your friends can only guess, because they've no access to the energy
emmitted by the 4 objects in their original, or interim, placements.
what's the point?
it is that, whatever happens occurs as a function of the energy-flow within
the external environment that's actually experienced.
it matters not what an individual nervous system's information-processing
dynamics converge upon, and call, "blue".
what matters is that what's converged upon does not induce an individual to
behave in ways that are discordant with the energy-flow that exists in the
external environment.
the only significant thing, then, is the energy-flow that exists within the
external environment. absent it, all that can be done is to guess.
now, the objects are removed from the table before a 5th friend arrives.
as usual, everyone refuses to talk to him, but he knows Analytical Geometry,
and, because he's used to the fact that no one will talk to him, he's
brought along his night-vision goggles.
if the objects weren't at room temperature when you placed them on the
table, and if the objects were in distinct places on the table long enough
to either heat or cool the table surface, and if the table surface has not
yet returned to equilibrium, using his night-vision goggles, the 5th friend
will be able to accurately describe the former placements of the 4 objects.
despite the fact that no one will talk to him, with the aid of
"time"-bridging technology (the night-vision goggles), the 5th friend is
still able to describe the placements of the objects on the table.
it's still the case the only thing that the only thing that matters is the
energy-flow within the one external environment to which you and your 5
friends have access, although unequally.
it doesn't matter that your other 4 friends cannot describe the placements
of the objects before they arrived.
the 5th friend's use of some advanced technology just allows him to see a
bit more of the energy-flow within the external environment, so he can say a
bit more than can your other 4 friends.
what's the point?
what's been referred to as "consciousness" derives in the energy-flow that
exists within the external environment that is experienced.
with respect to such, the only thing that matters is what portion of the
entire external-environmental environment is actually experienced.
our nervous systems have, innate within them, the capacity to create
analogues of the 5th friend's night-vision goggles, and our nervous systems
routinely do so, during the course of our individually-unique experiencing
of energy-flows within the external environment.
because of this, the comments of the first 4 friends to arrive will, likely,
be individually-unique... they each view the objects through the 'lenses' of
the individually-unique 'night-vision goggle' analogues that have been
created within their nervous systems during the courses of their
individually-unique experiences.
but this 'difference' is trivial, because (even at the 'atomic' 'level'),
the differences reported by these 4 friends do not alter the energy-flow
within the external environment. the enegy-flow within the external
environment =is= the energy-flow within the external environment, regardless
of whether or not it includes the contributions of energy expenditures
manifested by you and your 4 friends.
so...
with respect to your concept of one's being 'conscious' of "the color
'blue'", all that matters is the energy-flow that impinges upon the visual
apparatus... this energy-flow will include the energy-flow internal to
individual nervous systems, and which impinges, internally, upon the visual
apparatus, including any 'night-vision goggle'-analogue 'technolology' that
individual nervous systems have created.
anything else would render nervous systems incapable of by-producing
behavior consistently, which would render their host organisms incapable of
learning anything, and render them incapable of surviving.
individually-unique 'blue' is, therefore, everyone's 'blue'... by virtue of
everyone's 'blue' deriving in the energy-flow in the external environment
=and= the 'experiential-total' of individuals' encounters with the
energy-flow inherent in the external environment.
to see this, purchase, rent, or borrow some sensory-deprivation apparatus,
and use it for an extended period (i don't really recommend this)... absent
the connection to the external energy-flow that 'normally' impinges upon the
sensory receptors, you'll experience increasingly-disordered sensation...
your nervous system will function in an increasingly-disordered way. you'll
'see' 'blue' and many other 'things', but no one else will be able to
experience what you experience, be-cause the connection the the energy-flow
of the external environment 'normally' provides will be 'absent'.
now, after all of this, i still don't understand what the 'point' you're
trying to make is.
why?
it's simple... you've not provided sufficient external energy-flow to carry
the essence of your 'point' into my nervous system.
are you talking with respect to 'supernatural' experience?
are you working to make a case that 'supernatural' experience is possible?
if so, you're 'preaching to the choir'.
the only 'difficulty' inherent is that 'supernatural' experience is just
like the difference between your 4 friends who lack 'night-vision goggles',
and your one friend who has access to 'night-vision goggles'.
the 5th friend can only manifest behavior that will create an energy-flow
within the external environment through which he can =try= to convey the
essence of that which he has experienced to the others who have not
experienced it.
the 'difficulty', inherent, is manifested in the way that your first 4
friends will "move away from" the efforts of your 5th friend's efforts to
communicate the essence of his 'supernatural' experience.
why do they do so?
because they've not experienced the energy-flow that the 5th friend has
experienced. it's typically this way with stuff that's termed
'supernatural'... it's termed 'supernatural' because it's relative-rarity
works against it's being experienced in-common.
but, note well, this =still= all reduces to energy-flows within the external
environment.
why is it that folks, who just aren't privy to this or that energy-flow
within the external environment, so-typically, 'deny' the possibility of the
existence of the energy-flow in question?
it's simple.
they either do not, or chose not to, experience the energy-flow in question,
and/or refuse to acknowledge the stuff of accounts of folks who experienced
the original energy-flows, and their nervous systems 'finitize' the
resulting 'experience' in accord with the sums of their prior experiences.
you know, particle Physicists, who specialize in the search for 'new
elements' routinely lend enormous credance to this or that 'trace' which
occurs with extreme rarity. they record the trace, make pictures of it, and
pass the pictures, and underlying data, to their colleagues... so,
eventually, all of the colleagues experience 'analogues' of the energy-flow
that the discoverers originally experienced.
the thing is, the events are so rare that their 'abnormality' is far greater
than is the 'abnormality' of what have been trmed 'supernatural' events.
but, since the physicists were set-up to record, and did record the
extremely-rare energy-flows that they experienced, they can verify the
existence of these energy-flows via their recorded 'images'... they can even
put such evidence in a book, and publish it.
the thing is, so can individuals who experience stuff that's been deemed
'supernatural'... and folks've done exactly this, in the Bible and other
writings.
the only difference is that, in one case, technological 'sensors' are used,
and in the other, 'only' human nervous systems have been used.
why?
this, too, is simple... energy-flows that've been deemed 'supernatural'
don't occur in replicable ways... (this is, in fact, the main reason that
they are deemed to be, and are termed, 'supernatural') so how can
'technology' be developed to 'record' them?
but, just because 'technology' cannot be easily developed to record them,
such doesn't mean that they've no Physically Real Existence. it just means
that, with respect to things that have been termed 'supernatural', folks
tend to be like your first 4 friends, above, and unlike your 5th friend, and
since no one will talk to your 5th friend, things remain unchanged.
there is one thing that has been particularly-'offensive', on the part of
"science", it is that the written recordings of 'supernatural' events that
have been passed down since the beginning tend to be abjectly-'discounted'
by folks in "science"... even though a lot of what's so written down was
purchased in the blood of folks who witnessed the 'supernatural' events with
their own eyes, the only 'sensors' available, and up-to-the-task of
experiencing the 'supernatural' energy-flows... and testified to it, even
though it cost them their very earthly existences.
but, if one looks, one will see, clearly, that a lot of this 'difficulty'
was, in fact, created by folks who deemed it necessary to dictate 'god' to
folks who only wanted to discover Truth, thereby greatly-interfering with
the discovery of Truth, which is easily discerned to be 'wrong'.
so, i've rambled on with this surmise with respect to what your 'point'
might be, with your "color 'blue'" stuff. if it is that you want to "reserve
a place" for God, don't 'worry' about such.
God Created Science, and everything that Science seeks to understand, and
God ain't 'afraid' of Science's seeking to understand what God has Created.
Although it's not always immediately apparent, anything that Science does
that results in folks' "moving toward' Truth simultaneously 'moves toward'
God.
meanwhile, you don't have to work to construct any 'loop holes' through
which 'god' can have God's Existence.
God Is.
Folks will See when God's finished Creating us.
a final thought...
so much of the behavior that's been manifested by humans, down through the
ages, has brought on such awesome tragedy, simply be-cause the behavior has
been discordant with the energy-flow inherent in the external environment...
look at any war, or other human-instigated tragedy, and you'll see folks
'just' ignoring the energy-flows within the external environment, and
behaving discordantly with what they ignore.
Science is, even now, 'moving toward' God with respect to this awesome
tragedy. in such, Science will enable everyone to 'move toward' God.
it's of God that folks in Religion also do what they can to 'move toward
God, instead of 'denying' what 'night-vision goggles' disclose about Truth.
God is Truth.
seek Truth, find God.
cheers, ken collins
orfnugen6 at my-deja.com wrote in message <7nm5a9$akp$1 at nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Thank you very much, your welcome. I've
>taken the liberty to correct a few obvious
>errors in my words below and make some
>minor additions for the sake of clarification.
>>In article <7n0rd7$194 at dfw-ixnews13.ix.netcom.com>,
>flefever at ix.netcom.com(F. Frank LeFever) wrote:
>>>> I appreciate this thoughtful and lucid exposition!
>>>> F. Frank LeFever, Ph.D.
>> New York Neuropsychology Group
>>>"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. EM is the common abbreviation for electromagnetic
>radiation.
>>Color is not a physical phenomenon. We 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 (or
>even some other sensation).
>>"Perceived colors" naturally form a wheel, while EM colors
>are linear. The perceived color violet has red and blue
>in it In our perception, violet is between and adjacent
>red and blue. Yet in terms of EM colors, violet is at the
>opposite end of the spectrum from red. In terms of EM
>colors, 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.
>>Using direct electrical stimulation of your brain, you can
>be made to see color even when no EM is present. And by rewiring
>your brain, you can be made to see blue when are shown light which
>you are used to calling red. You equate the color red with a
>specific wavelength of light because in your life these two
>phenomenon have a 100% correlation rate. 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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>Encoding and transfering information is not the same as
>conscious awareness.
>>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 detect, let alone generate, at this
>point in time. Complex computers are no more conscious than
>a simple calculator. If a human could subconsciously do the
>work of a calculator, we would say this human has a specific
>kind of intelligence. There are in fact idiot savants who
>possess one extreme intellectual skill such as the ability to
>quickly calculate complex mathematical operations. I would say
>this is a form of intelligence, albiet, not necessarily
>conscious intelligence. For this reason, I would say that
>calculors possess some small degree of intelligence, and can be
>said to be "intelligent." But it is a fallacy to believe that
>complexity and non-conscious intelligence, even extreme intelligence
>will lead to consciousness. I know of no reason why a non-conscious
>computer/robot cannot be built that can do everything man can do,
>that is as intelligent as man in every respect, but does not
>possess one scintilla of consciousness. There is nothing that man
>does that requires consciousness. Complex, plastic behavior does
>not require consciousness. It is the greatest mystery of all, why
>man is conscious. According to all known laws of physics, man
>should not be conscious. Finally, consciousness can be present
>without the slightest amount of intelligence. For example, there
>are humans with Alzhiemer's patients who are little more than
>vegetables, who possess virtually no intelligence, who can barely
>walk without bumping into walls, but they perceive colors, and
>they can feel pain and pleasure. Profoundly retarded humans
>are conscious and so are infants. A computer that feels pain
>will be conscious even if it can do nothing else, whereas there
>is no reason to believe that computer that can do new physics
>will possess one iota of consciousness. In order for us to
>determine whether a computer feels pain, we will first have to
>be able to measure, detect and understand pain in humans.
>>>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/>Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
