The red part of hallucinating red, dreaming red, and seeing red are all the same thing — Michael

Your equivocating "red".

I once seriously injured the thumb of my right hand. Almost cut the tip off, including half of the last skeletal digit. Immediate and constant pressure under tight wrap was applied. No pain. Perfect saw kerf visible in xray. Shattered beyond. Excellent job technician. Took nearly six months for the bone fragments to make their way to the surface and be expelled. Interesting scars.

Bad habits became muscle memory while always paying close attention to the relationship between the cutting tool and my body. Complacency won when I did not pay attention to how close my thumb was to the tool. Two things cannot occupy the same space during the same timeframe.

Reaching over a cutter to grab a push stick is a bad habit to form. I no longer have that habit.

because of this the god-of-the-gaps paradigm of the modern naturalist matches the theological paradigm of the modern fundamentalist — Leontiskos

Care to set out the match?

Hallucination, dreaming, and seeing are very different experiences. Seeing a red pen is a common experience that always includes a red pen.

Hallucinating a red pen does not.

Dreaming one does not.

They are not equivalent experiences. They are all existentially dependent upon red pens. They do not all include red pens.

They all include mental percepts. They do not all consist entirely of them. I'm cool with admitting that all dreams consist of little more than biological structures doing their thing. Dreams consist of biological autonomous neurological functioning. Red pens are not. Therefore... dreams of red pens do not consist of red pens. Hallucinations consist of biological autonomous neurological functioning. Red pens are not. Therefore...

Seeing red pens is not always and/or necessarily an experience that requires color vision. Hallucinating red pens does.

We can expose an individual devoid of the biological structures necessary for noticing color to a red pen. They are otherwise very similar in biological structures to us. They can then follow that red pen around. Clearly, they see that particular red pen. They're paying very close attention to it. They're following it with their eyes. I would not deny them of mental percepts. I would note that their percepts are not the entirety of their experience. I would not deny that they are fixated upon a red pen. Their experience of that particular red pen includes that pen, despite their inability to know it's color.

Color doesn't always matter.

They cannot hallucinate red pens. They cannot dream red pens.

Sometimes it does.

Meaningful correlations, associations, connections always matter. Red pens can become very meaningful to a color blind creature. That meaning neither results from nor consists of either hallucination or dreams of red. Red pens play a meaningful role in experience without any subjective private quale... redness.

What's the name given to the most blood-filled active biological structures "lighting up" in the scans?

What counts as an experience?

You asked me "what's the difference between hallucinating red and the mental percept that 620-750nm light ordinarily causes to occur." — Michael

I also asked what the difference was between the mental percept that 620-750 light ordinarily causes to occur and seeing red, and dreaming red.

You claimed "nothing" as an answer to all three questions. If there is no difference between four things, then they are the same.

They're all experiences. Three different kinds of experiences. "Mental percept" is not one.

What do you take the pen to be when it isn't being perceived. — AmadeusD

Exactly the same as it is while looking at it.

Ok, right, so then there's a Yes/No answer here:

Are you suggesting the Red Pen is actually out there, in the world, whether or not it is perceived? — AmadeusD

There's a bit of an identity crisis here. I do not know what you're picking out - if anything - to the exclusion of all else with "Red Pen".

The red super fine one I last put in my wooden writing utensil holder, is still there despite my not looking at it now...

So, yes.

I would say that red pen is actually in that holder, on top of that back bench at that location, right now.

And that the mind merely does the perceiving of a mind-independent red pen? Yes? No? — AmadeusD

I wouldn't say that.

, if what we're happy to say is that all three obtain in the mind. — AmadeusD

I don't like the baggage of 'obtain'. Require minds... sure. Include minds... sure.

Aha! Not at all really. My bad if that got bad in your eyes.

:flower:

There are no red pens in hallucinations and/or dreams thereof.
— creativesoul

I think this is incorrect, depending on your response to what the difference would be between these and the "seeing" instance. That's all I'm asking... I would call it incorrect if we cannot pick out a feature of hte 'actual' seeing of a Red pen in contrast to the other two — AmadeusD

The red pen is not an elemental constituent within dreams or hallucinations thereof. The difference between seeing, hallucinating, and dreaming pens is the pen.

I don't know how much plainer, clearer, or more precisely that can be stated.

There are no red pens in hallucinations and/or dreams thereof.
— creativesoul

I think this is incorrect, — AmadeusD

That's too bad.

I see the distinction you made as weak — AmadeusD

So you've claimed.

Which distinction?

I would like a conceptual analysis of the difference between the three cases... — AmadeusD

I've given a brief causal history as well as an in depth enough elemental constituency.

In all three cases we're experiencing the event of 'looking at an object we apprehend as a pen which will write with red ink", right? — AmadeusD

There are no red pens in hallucinations and/or dreams thereof.

None. This is literally something I am asking you to address. You drew the distinction. — AmadeusD

What distinction do you think I drew?

When do you actually 'see' a Red pen?
— AmadeusD

When 'you' have biological machinery close enough to our own. — creativesoul

This is unfortunately, quite unhelpful. That obtains in all three cases and provides no basis to delineate. — AmadeusD

We already drew and maintained the distinctions between seeing, hallucinating, and dreaming?

Those still hold.

They all include biological machinery. They do not all count as seeing a red pen. Please keep up.

Given that we only call the pen 'red' by convention, can this particular difference (realistically, the proximity to the trigger (whereas dreaming is far askance)) really do much lifting? — AmadeusD

What difference are you drawing/maintaining? If it's unacceptably weak, then why mention it?

When do you actually 'see' a Red pen? — AmadeusD

When 'you' have biological machinery close enough to our own.

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?