There are very different basic elemental constituents. Red pens, while playing a causal role in all three, do not play the role of elemental constituent in all three. There are no red pens in dreams and/or hallucinations of them.

cause differs — AmadeusD

Yup.

Seeing red pens is an experience that is partially caused by red pens. Hallucinating and dreaming red pens are experiences partially caused by seeing red pens. Hallucinating and dreaming red pens are partially caused by red pens.

The broader methodological point is that philosophical dichotomies such as subject/object. subjective/objective, internal/external, private/public are difficult to maintain on close examination
— Banno
— apokrisis

Those dichotomies cannot properly account for that which is both. Some experience consists of both subject and object, internal and external things. All talk of experience is both, public and private.

That's the broader point that came to my mind. The inherent inadequacy of those dichotomies to be able to take sensible account of all human experience.

What counts as the bare minimum criterion for what counts as being an experience?

For starters, I say it must be meaningful to the creature having the experience. We must be able to say how.








I asked what the difference was between seeing red stuff, hallucinating red stuff, and dreaming red stuff, .

"Nothing" was your reply.

Of course, smart ass. What we call something is not equivalent to causation.

We know what causes seeing red. What causes hallucinations and dreams of red?

What causes hallucinations of red?

The percept that occurs when we hallucinate red is the percept that occurs when we dream red is the percept that optical stimulation by 620-750nm light ordinarily causes to occur.

Or if you prefer, the neural activity that is responsible for dreaming red is the neural activity that is responsible for hallucinating red is the neural activity that optical stimulation by 620-750nm light ordinarily causes to occur.

When this neural activity occurs when asleep we call it a dream. When this neural activity occurs when awake but not in response to optical stimulation we call it an hallucination. When this neural activity occurs when awake and in response to optical stimulation we call it a non-hallucinatory waking experience. — Michael

So then, there is a difference between seeing red, hallucinating red, and dreaming red. Hence, if they all include "the mental percept", and yet they are distinct, then it only follows that the notion of the "mental percept" is inadequate/insufficient for explaining those differences.

Pretty much what I just did. :wink:

Ever read/listen to Robert Reich?

Raising the cap on taxable social security income levels would more than fix the problem. Only those who benefit the most would see a SS tax increase. Somewhere around 175K yearly.

On this view you're advocating for, you're clearly stating that there is no difference between seeing, hallucinating, and dreaming.
— creativesoul

I didn’t say that. — Michael

What's the difference between seeing red and the mental percept that 620-750nm light ordinarily causes to occur?
— creativesoul

Nothing. — Michael

And what's the difference between hallucinating red and the mental percept that 620-750nm light ordinarily causes to occur?

Or between dreaming red and the mental percept that 620-750nm light ordinarily causes to occur?
— creativesoul

Nothing. — Michael

Sigh.

Now the word "red" is no longer in books, on paper, spoken aloud for everyone to hear, or on our screens... it exists only in the mind.

Perfect.

Oh brother...

Well, there are certain groupings of nerves(specific parts of the nervous system) that do different stuff than others. If certain biological structures are always active while urinating, it does not make urinating equivalent to the structures.

That seems to apply equally to C4 fibres and pain as well as V4 and seeing red.

If the biological machinery behaves in a certain way when one looks at a red pen, and yet also behaves the exact same way when there is no red pen, then we have a hallucination(malfunction).

If the biological machinery acts as though one is looking at a red pen, but it is doing so while one is sleeping, it's causing one to dream about a red pen. Again, there is no red pen.

Red pens are always included in seeing red pens, but they are never included in hallucinating or dreaming about them.

Sure, the biological machinery acts the same. That's not an issue.

What's the difference between seeing red and the mental percept that 620-750nm light ordinarily causes to occur?
— creativesoul

Nothing. — Michael

And what's the difference between hallucinating red and the mental percept that 620-750nm light ordinarily causes to occur?

Or between dreaming red and the mental percept that 620-750nm light ordinarily causes to occur?
— creativesoul

Nothing. — Michael

Well, there we have it. Straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak. On this view you're advocating for, you're clearly stating that there is no difference between seeing, hallucinating, and dreaming. Yet, there most certainly is. This is all very odd, considering that earlier you professed one of the reasons for holding that view was because it explained hallucinations, dreams, and seeing. What you call an explanation, I would call a confusion. There are differences between seeing red, hallucinating red, and dreaming red.

Reductio ad absurdum is adequate for rejecting the position you're arguing from/for. Equivocation is as well. Self-contradiction is also. I've neither the time, nor the inclination to show those again. You've sorely neglected to directly address those charges, in lieu of low hanging fruit.

What's the difference between seeing red and the mental percept that 620-750nm light ordinarily causes to occur?
— creativesoul

Nothing — Michael

And what's the difference between hallucinating red and the mental percept that 620-750nm light ordinarily causes to occur?

Or between dreaming red and the mental percept that 620-750nm light ordinarily causes to occur?

I think I've seen enough here. Thanks for the interesting discussion/thoughts.

Be well.

We can, and do, use the phrase "red part of the visible spectrum" to mean "620-750nm light". Pens do reflect 620-750nm light, and so we can, and do, say that pens reflect the red part of the visible spectrum of light. — Michael

Then you're equivocating. Earlier you've put forth the claim that light has no color. The visible spectrum is light. Red is a color.

Color, according to you, is a mental percept... nothing more. The visible spectrum is not.

Sure seeing a red pen is not equivalent to a red pen. Moreover, seeing red is not equivalent to red. That's a problem as well.

If red is just a part of the light spectrum (x to x frequencies) that's fine — AmadeusD

Well. If red is part of the light spectrum, and certain things reflect that range, and we're capable of detecting that range, that's how we see red things. They would be reflecting that range even if we were not looking. That seems a problem for the view I've been reading from Michael, and I presumed(perhaps mistakenly?) you're in agreement with his view as shared here in this thread.

If red is part of the light spectrum, and red is a color, then light has/is color. That's a problem for Michael.

We can, and do, use the phrase "red part of the visible spectrum" to mean "620-750nm light". Pens do reflect 620-750nm light, and so we can, and do, say that pens reflect the red part of the visible spectrum of light.

But this isn't our ordinary conception of the colour red. Our ordinary conception of the colour red is that of the mental percept that 620-750nm light ordinarily causes to occur. This is how we can make sense of coloured dreams and hallucinations, of synesthesia, of variations in colour perception (such as the dress), and of scientific studies like this. — Michael

Is that the only way to make sense of those things mentioned?

What's the difference between seeing red and the mental percept that 620-750nm light ordinarily causes to occur?

my mind creates a red experience for me in response to a(in this case, a very specific) frequency of light reflected of a cooked sugar surface. It isn't in the Skittle. — AmadeusD

So, you and Michael are claiming that the properties/features/physical characteristics regardng the surface layer of red pens cause us to see color, and the color is nothing more than a mental event/phenomena.

Things reflecting certain ranges of the visible spectrum cause us to see red, or green, or violet. That seeing of color, according to you, is nothing but a mental phenomena.

Rather than claim that the pen is reflecting the red part of the visible spectrum causing us to see red, you'd rather say that there is no red part of the visible spectrum, rather there are certain ranges that cause us to see red.

Is that about right?

My point about the scanner is that it cannot detect colour. — AmadeusD

It detects what we've named "red", despite not having mental events.

Just off the cuff absurd conclusions following from the idea that color is nothing more than a mental/psychological event.

There is no red in the spectrum. — AmadeusD

Not a Skittles fan, huh? Taste the rainbow, except the rainbow has no colors.

The range we've named "red" cause us to see red, but there is no red in the range.

Excellent.

Yeah. Seems there are some rather absurd conclusions lurking hereabouts.

Prisms do not refract the light into the visible spectrum, or the visible spectrum is colorless.

Rainbows have no color.

"Mental percept"

Occam's razor.

What's being explained by the invocation of "mental percept" that cannot be explained without it?

Frequencies of light are not color... according to those I'm arguing against.

Did science abandon the visible spectrum? The infrared? The ultraviolet?

:brow:

There's something awefully funny going on in here.

Science has led to automation capable of color matching nearly any surface presented to its scanner. It does so to near perfection. Funny how that can happen if color is psychological/mental and nothing more.

Automation can mix physical pigments to perfectly match the color sample.

The scanner cannot see/detect/perceive color if color is nothing more than neural/psychological events.

Sounds peaceful to me. The wrong cat, huh? I've been fortunate enough to have never owned the wrong one. He no like you, or you no like him?

:wink:

Cheers. That's what I do for living. Fortunate enough to be able to choose something I love to do. I am living well in that regard.

I hope you are as well!

:smile:

Good luck stimulating blind eyes with electricity in order to cause them to suddenly see the world despite not having properly functioning biological structures. I hope doctors don't get their patients' hopes up quite yet.

So, for the past few days I've been working on a special presentation box. The wood species and cuts are such that there is a remarkable iridescence emanating from the piece. This is more or less noticeable depending upon the amount of light it is bathed in. The contrasting dark and light tiger striped pattern switches back and forth. They're switching on the face of the box. That's where the pattern is located. The stripes are not in my head. They consist entirely of reflected light. Those reflections do not require being perceived. You can, however, look for yourself.

They go from being the darker stripes in the pattern to being the lighter ones, and vice versa. It is a mesmerizing shift in perception. Captivating. That change does require an observer(at a bare minimum a changing vantage point) It is a change in how the box reflects light according to the gradual change in the vantage point of the observer relative to the location of the box and the light source; how it looks from a gradually changing vantage point.

One can rest the piece in direct light, change the vantage point from which one observes the box by slowly walking around the box, and see for themselves just how the pattern on the box changes as described above. The cause of this change is largely due to the biological structures of the wood itself.

That is not entirely mental.

We all use them to pick out white and gold and blue and black things. We just differ on which things.
— creativesoul

See what I said to Banno about the distinction between the adjective "red" and the noun "red":

The adjectives "red" and "painful" describe things like pens and stubbing one's toe.

The nouns "red" and "pain" refer to the mental percepts that pens and stubbing one's toe cause to occur.
— Michael — Michael

I take it that you're clarifying your own personal use, here in this thread, but you are not making some claim true of everyone using the terms "red" and "painful". Correct me, if you would please, should my take on that be somehow mistaken. I don't think your use has been consistent, but I may be wrong on that.

Colours, as ordinarily understood in everyday life, are how things look, not how things reflect light. How things reflect light determines how things look, and so determines the colour seen, but reflecting light is distinct from colour. — Michael

Agreed. Color is not the same as how things reflect light.

When I think about the colour red I am not thinking about light reflectances; I am thinking about the visual percept. — Michael

Understood. As you should be if you're using the term to pick out/refer to "the visual percept" That may answer my wondering if I'm taking you the right way.

Do all of the eyes that are perceiving the very same scenery at the very same time from nearly the same vantage point perceive the same light? Yup.
— creativesoul

We see the same light but not the same colour. Therefore the light is not the colour. — Michael

I don't think that argument is valid.

We see the same light but not the same color. We agree on that. Therefore, seeing the same light is not the same as seeing the same color. The term "seeing" is being stretched beyond coherence. We do not see all the ranges of wavelengths entering our eyes.

We do not detect all the ranges of wavelengths entering our eyes at any given time. We also do not all detect the same ranges even when perceiving the same light at the same time. Therefore, perceiving light is not equivalent to detecting ranges. If color is light. Then seeing colors is on par with detecting certain ranges and not equivalent to perceiving light.

Or...

You and your friend are not perceiving the same light.

The light is the cause of the colour (much like the chemicals in the food are the cause of the taste), nothing more. — Michael

So, you're saying that at least some of the constituents comprising the food are not the food. To me, eating food is part of the cause of tasting it. The other part is how the olfactory and gustatory biological structures work. Seems to me that throughout this thread, your position completely disregards all the things outside the head. Things that are not mental, all of which are necessary for subjective experience to first emerge; that are necessary for illusions and dreams to first emerge; that are necessary for mental percepts to emerge.

What do you mean with "eyes perceive light"? Are we talking about the eye as an organ? And are we talking about what happens when light waves interact with the eye or what kind of signal the eye transmits? — Echarmion

Brute perception of is physical interaction with light. My words were in response to Michael, who's been depending upon what he thinks the science says and/or supports. So, yes, we're talking about how the biological structures work. I suspect that there's much more to Michael's notion of "perception" than my own.

The words "white and gold" and "blue and black" are referring to both, the light being emitted by the dress and perceived by the viewer.
— creativesoul

They aren't referring to both. — Michael

Bald assertion contradicting everyday observable events, falsified by them, in fact.

Some people use "white and gold" and "black and blue" to pick out specific things. Some use them to pick out particular wavelength ranges within the natural visible spectrum to the exclusion of all else. Some use them to gather groups of things reflecting/emitting the same wavelengths. Some use them to pick out certain parts of personal subjective experience; namely the ocular biological structure's role in our daily lives(seeing things).

We all use them to pick out white and gold and blue and black things. We just differ on which things.

When my colleague and I look at the photo of the dress we see different colours. The noun "colours" isn't referring to the light because we don't see different light...

How many different ranges of wavelengths are emanating from the dress? The dress emits but one, towards both - you and he - at the same time during the same viewing. Saturate our eyes with bright sunlight, and we'll notice changes on the receiver's end, not the source/cause.

Do all of the eyes that are perceiving the very same scenery at the very same time from nearly the same vantage point perceive the same light? Yup. They do not all detect the same ranges though.

Maybe quote the rest of the sentence:

When I look at the photo of the dress and describe its colours as white and gold, the words “white” and “gold” are referring to colour percepts, not the pixels on the screen emitting certain wavelengths of light

Do you agree or disagree with this? — Michael

It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. It's a matter of coherency/terminological consistency. As far as I can tell, you're equivocating key terms. "Colours" is one. I was just pointing out the equivocation. The rest of the sentence shows that nicely. You know that too. That's why you corrected it when you added what's below...

When looking at the photo of the dress, some see white and gold, some black and blue. This is a fact. What are the words "white", "gold", "black", and "blue" referring to in that sentence?

I say mental percepts. — Michael

It's worth noting that that dress 'photo' is a digital image. The same issue does not arise with a hard copy. The words "white and gold" and "blue and black" are referring to both, the light being emitted by the dress and perceived by the viewer. The differences between viewers are attributable to the amount of direct sunlight they(and their eyes) had been exposed to leading up to the viewing of the 'photo'. The colors emitted by surfaces and our eyes are effected/affected by environmental influences such as direct sunlight, shadow, etc. Colours and coloured pigmentation are virtually useless in the deep sea for instance. A bright yellow ball looks very different when viewed in deep water, or in very low light conditions. Everything looks different in those conditions. So, it's clearly not just about what's going on in the brain when we look at distal objects.

I say claiming that colours are "mental percepts" confines the scope to inside the brain. The dress, ball, and the light they emit/reflect are not. Technically speaking, nor are our eyes. I'm thinking that science also supports the claim that colours are light. I'm doubting that science supports what you're claiming it does.

Referring to mind-independent objects as having colours is a relic of naive colour realism — Michael

When I look at the photo of the dress and describe its colours — Michael

:brow: