I already mentioned that one can create the hallucination of seeing red by stimulating a person's visual cortex with the electromagnetic field. Therefore, any visual experience is created in the visual cortex.

I was trying to clarify rather than equivocate, but obviously you seem to be unenlightened on the semantics. — Corvus

Oh ha ha! You made a little joke about my handle! No one ever did that before; I should have thought about that when I chose the label.

I already mentioned that one can create the hallucination of seeing red by stimulating a person's visual cortex with the electromagnetic field. Therefore, any visual experience is created in the visual cortex. — MoK

Sure you did. However, it doesn't quite explain why you want to say the rose looks red, when it is red.

can create the hallucination of seeing red by stimulating a person's visual cortex with the electromagnetic field. Therefore, any visual experience is created in the visual cortex. — MoK

This sounds like some scientific experiment report, but it sounds mysterious and has some problems to clarify.

Is the redness created by stimulating a person's visual cortex with the electromagnetic field, the same redness of the rose? Are all redness are the same redness? If the experimental creation of redness was possible to "a person", could the result be replicated with all other folks on earth? Or could it have been just one off event by chance?

Oh ha ha! You made a little joke about my handle! No one ever did that before; I should have thought about that when I chose the label. — unenlightened

I am delighted that you got the joke. :nerd:

I — MoK

MoK, I can't seem to be able to select your quote to Tom Storm "I think they mix love, affection, and the like with beauty." This is not true. Love is inexcorably linked to beauty. Beauty and good is exactly what is loved. Parents love their children because they believe that their children are beautiful and good. People love their beloved not just for their looks or other extrinsic features but also for the intrinsic "beauty in the inward soul". This is what those who love see in their beloved regardless of whether others see them as beautiful or ugly.

This sounds like some scientific experiment report, but it sounds mysterious and has some problems to clarify. — Corvus

There are no problems here. You can google it yourself.

Is the redness created by stimulating a person's visual cortex with the electromagnetic field, the same redness of the rose? — Corvus

Yes. It could be lighter or darker though.

If the experimental creation of redness was possible to "a person", could the result be replicated with all other folks on earth? — Corvus

Yes.

Don't parents of a disabled child love him/her?

There are no problems here. You can google it yourself. — MoK

Google, all the ChatBots and AI parrots are not good source for knowledge. Most of the times, they talk nonsense. I don't use them at all.

Yes. It could be lighter or darker though. — MoK

Please show us the photo evidence of the different images in the cortex for lighter and darker reds which are from the electromagnetic stimulation, and the ones from the red rose.

Yes. — MoK

With whom were the replicating experiments carried out? Please submit all the names and the details of the results which the experiments have been conducted to support your claims, from which the validity of the claims would be judged and accepted, or thrown out as unfounded claims.

If you spent a little time googling then you could find many scientific articles on the topic.

If you spent a little time googling then you could find many scientific articles on the topic. — MoK

Sure, but I try to think on them by myself reading the classic philosophical books. Google and A.I. parrots can be ok at times for finding best price for things or catching up with the news and weather forecasts.

But most importantly, blindly accepting the information from the popular media services whatever they throw to folks, and presenting them as absolute truths is not a good way doing philosophy in principle.

I am not saying "don't use them", but just saying, if you chose to use them, then back them up with concrete evidence. :)

I am not talking about Google but scientific articles published that you can find using Googling. Do you believe in science?

I am not talking about Google but scientific articles published that you can find using Googling. Do you believe in science? — MoK

Remember you asked me to Google? That's why I gave you the reason why I don't Google.

Well, Science. Of course I do believe in Science, but only the parts which is reasonable and making sense. If it is not reasonable or shady in their claims, then it must be put onto the table of the philosophical investigations, before accepting it.

You shouldn't believe in science as a whole, just because it says "science". That would be then religious beliefs you are having. Bear in mind, in the ancient times, science and religion were one subject.

I am not interested in what the popular media services saying unless they were really assisting in solving critical problems. I would be rather more interested in what each individual as a person thinks on the issues with his / her own mind. I believe that is the philosophical methodology and principle.

There is nothing that you can do for you anymore if you don't want to read the articles published on the topic.

I am talking with MoK, not with Google. I know exactly what MoK has been saying on every points. I don't need to go to Google. I just pointed on some points which are not clear which MoK was addressing, and asked how "MoK" thinks on them, not what Google thinks, or the article says.

I am done with you!

Me too. Good luck with you. :)

Good luck to you too. :)

Thanks mate. My point was that methodology of your knowledge and claims are as important as the knowledge itself. No worries. Hope we can continue discussions in some other topics in the future. All the best.

I wish you a fruitful endeavor!

Don't — MoK

MoK, I don't know why my tablet would not allows me to select your full question "Don't parents of a disabled child love him/her?" It is because they love their child that they can overlook their child's (outer and inner) deformity and see the intrinsic beauty and goodness of their child.

Don't you think that the parents believe that their child is disable yet they love him/her?

Don't you think that the parents believe that their child is disable yet they love him/her? — MoK

Yes. I think that the parents can love their child even though they believe that their child is disable. The parents see their child through their "minds eyes" which overlooks deformity and sees the intrinsic beauty and goodness of their child.

My point was the love of parents for their children is not affected by whether their children are ugly or disable. A disable child is disable and cannot look in the eyes of parents otherwise.

My point was the love of parents for their children is not affected by whether their children are ugly or disable. A disable child is disable and cannot look in the eyes of parents otherwise. — MoK

Your point is partly true, but it is not the complete truth. The intrinsic love of parents for their children is not affected by whether their children are ugly or disabled because loving parents see their children through their "minds eyes" which overlook their children`s disability and sees only the intrinsic beauty of their children. If the parents were not able to look past their children`s extrinsic ugliness or disability, then they only love their children`s extrinsic beauty and not their intrinsic beauty and goodness.