Seeing red

[Angrboda]

I think I've been clear throughout that it is the system that matters.  You keep taking pieces of the system out and asking me if they're the system?  No, the pieces aren't; the system is.

Well, if the brain (which is the system in question I suppose, we can talk about DNA later) is the system, and also the idea, then I'm not sure what an idea is at all.  I had assumed that discrete configurations of encoded information were the ideas, and that the brain was the context in which ideas would have meaning.

The brain isn't the system. The system includes all the parts of the feedback loop, including the efferent body, the world we are interacting with, and our perceptual systems.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Hi Chad. I'm sorry I didn't reply to this until now...But ultimately I didn't know how to reply because your position seems to be steeped in heavy-duty philosophy... which, along with heavy duty logic, as I said before, tends to go right over my head.

All the fault lies with me for not being able to translate Scholastic concepts into everyday language. Thank you. I do appreciate your taking the time to wade through those thickets. If it helps pay attention to Nestor. He approaches these kinds of problems from a more classical approach as well even though he is an atheist.

[bennyboy]

Well, if the brain (which is the system in question I suppose, we can talk about DNA later) is the system, and also the idea, then I'm not sure what an idea is at all.  I had assumed that discrete configurations of encoded information were the ideas, and that the brain was the context in which ideas would have meaning.

The brain isn't the system.  The system includes all the parts of the feedback loop, including the efferent body, the world we are interacting with, and our perceptual systems.

If the entire universe is the system, then how are we to arbitrarily call subsystems "ideas," and others "just stuff happening"?  We are connected, at least by gravity, to everything in the universe, are we not?

[Angrboda]

The brain isn't the system.  The system includes all the parts of the feedback loop, including the efferent body, the world we are interacting with, and our perceptual systems.

If the entire universe is the system, then how are we to arbitrarily call subsystems "ideas," and others "just stuff happening"?  We are connected, at least by gravity, to everything in the universe, are we not?

I explained earlier how the significance is constrained by what the channels of feedback accept. Stronger feedback means more interactions per given time with the specific channels which constrain what parts are and are not significant. So the intentional idea cannot consist of any light in the non-visible spectrum if the feedback channel in question is our eyes. Try thinking about what a red apple looks like in the ultra-violet. Got that image? Of course not, because you have no feedback channel that communicates data concerning ultra-violet light.

[bennyboy]

Okay, I see. So because the human brain has the capacity to accept "red" input, process it and act on it, the property of red-light reflection in the apple is part of the system of ideas? Do you consider redness itself an idea?

[Angrboda]

Okay, I see.  So because the human brain has the capacity to accept "red" input, process it and act on it, the property of red-light reflection in the apple is part of the system of ideas?  Do you consider redness itself an idea?

The concept of redness is an idea. Redness itself appears as a facet of certain kinds of ideas.

[bennyboy]

Okay, I see.  So because the human brain has the capacity to accept "red" input, process it and act on it, the property of red-light reflection in the apple is part of the system of ideas?  Do you consider redness itself an idea?

The concept of redness is an idea.  Redness itself appears as a facet of certain kinds of ideas.

I'm trying not to resort to the discussion of qualia, but allow me for a second for clarification.  When I see an apple, and I experience its redness, are you saying that redness is a facet of the idea "apple"?

[The Grand Nudger]

OFC redness is an idea, ofc its a facet of certain kinds of ideas.  Your mind does alot of work with ideas...there's not an -actual- apple in your head when you think about one.  If it worked like that there wouldn't be any hunger in the world.



(I'm not sure if you wanted me to address the "will of dna" comments. If you want to give dna will for the conversation then rocks get will, piles of leaves get will, everything gets will. Will becomes a floating placeholder for nothing, and specific to no particular example, including ourselves. "Will" is, apparently, equivalent to chemistry and nothing more. How hard do you think I would argue against that? I'd simply suggest that will -is- nothing but chemistry (and physics) but rocks still don't have it. Certain interactions, certain reasons, your comments on mind apply just as well for will.)

[Angrboda]

The concept of redness is an idea.  Redness itself appears as a facet of certain kinds of ideas.

I'm trying not to resort to the discussion of qualia, but allow me for a second for clarification.  When I see an apple, and I experience its redness, are you saying that redness is a facet of the idea "apple"?

Redness is a facet of the idea that is an image of an apple. The concept of redness may play a part in the non-image idea of an apple.

[bennyboy]

OFC redness is an idea, ofc its a facet of certain kinds of ideas.  Your mind does alot of work with ideas...there's not an -actual- apple in your head when you think about one.  If it worked like that there wouldn't be any hunger in the world.

Okay, and what are the physical constituents of this idea? In what way should neurons be organized to allow us to see red, and more importantly-- if color is an idea, why doesn't selective brain damage not cause us to see new colors that don't exist?

I mean, I can (and have) heard sounds that don't exist anywhere else. I've seen forms that don't exist anywhere else. I haven't seen colors other than those I can normally see with my eyes, even under the influence of drugs or anything else.

(I'm not sure if you wanted me to address the "will of dna" comments.  If you want to give dna will for the conversation then rocks get will, piles of leaves get will, everything gets will.  Will becomes a floating placeholder for nothing, and specific to no particular example, including ourselves.  "Will" is, apparently, equivalent to chemistry and nothing more.  How hard do you think I would argue against that?  I'd simply suggest that will -is- nothing but chemistry (and physics) but rocks still don't have it.  Certain interactions, certain reasons, your comments on mind apply just as well for will.)

Why are you talking about rocks all the time?

DNA has evolved which expresses itself in the form of organisms and their behaviors. It has a will in the sense that the behaviors dictated by the DNA will actually come into conflict with the will of a human agent, and win.