Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[SteveKlinko]

Let's get to the point of this thread. How does Idealism (any version of it) Explain how Neural Activity produces Conscious Experience? Since Idealism requires a backward Causality Trajectory maybe I should ask: How does Idealism (any version of it) Explain how Conscious Experience produces Neural Activity?

Idealism explains neural activity as yet another construct in a reality that's entirely constructed by mind.

I say "mind" and there are absolute idealists who claim mind too is a construct and there is nothing but experience. This is rather nice BTW as it lets humble experiencers such as earthworms have their little say.

I agree that there is nothing but Conscious Experience for us as Conscious Minds. But Conscious Experiences are the Detection scheme that we use to make sense out of the External Universe which Exists as a separate Phenomenon from the Conscious Mind Phenomenon. I don't buy the Idealist point of view so we really are at an Impasse. I will never understand Idealism (and I have tried for decades), but I suspect that you really do understand my Dualism because it would have to be the only Sensible starting point even for you.

[SteveKlinko]

Added a new paragraph to this section on the website:

Next, I would like to talk about Higher Order Theories of Consciousness with respect to Conscious Experience. There are several different theories that fall into this category, but they all specify that to make a Conscious Experience (first Order) really Conscious, there must be a Secondary Thought (Higher Order) about the original Conscious Experience. So to be specific, they would stipulate that an Experience of Redness cannot become Conscious all by itself because there has to first be a subsequent Higher Order Thought about the Redness such as: "Oh look there is something Red out there in my field of view". In my opinion and my own Experience, this is an Incoherent and unnecessary requirement for Experiencing Redness. I simply Experience Redness without any other thoughts attached. In fact, any other Thought about Redness is just an added Distraction from the Redness Experience as a thing in itself. It is incomprehensible to me as to why they need an Extra Order in their Experience of Redness. They must not have the same kind of Visual Experience that I do, and I am tempted to say they must fall into the category of people that might not have Conscious Experience for Color. See https://theintermind.com/#Zombies. But even worse, the theory can never get to an Explanation for any actual Conscious Experience. There is no way this theory can Explain what the IM is within the theory. How does this theory Explain any Conscious Experience?

[Belindi]

Added a new paragraph to this section on the website:

Next, I would like to talk about Higher Order Theories of Consciousness with respect to Conscious Experience. There are several different theories that fall into this category, but they all specify that to make a Conscious Experience (first Order) really Conscious, there must be a Secondary Thought (Higher Order) about the original Conscious Experience. So to be specific, they would stipulate that an Experience of Redness cannot become Conscious all by itself because there has to first be a subsequent Higher Order Thought about the Redness such as: "Oh look there is something Red out there in my field of view". In my opinion and my own Experience, this is an Incoherent and unnecessary requirement for Experiencing Redness. I simply Experience Redness without any other thoughts attached. In fact, any other Thought about Redness is just an added Distraction from the Redness Experience as a thing in itself. It is incomprehensible to me as to why they need an Extra Order in their Experience of Redness. They must not have the same kind of Visual Experience that I do, and I am tempted to say they must fall into the category of people that might not have Conscious Experience for Color. See https://theintermind.com/#Zombies. But even worse, the theory can never get to an Explanation for any actual Conscious Experience. There is no way this theory can Explain what the IM is within the theory. How does this theory Explain any Conscious Experience?

Conscious awareness of red is undoubtedly experience. It's also subjective experience as someone may be red/green colour blind. Someone else may not value colour experiences. Someone else may have a psychedelic experience of red.

What all these subjective experiences of red have in common is, in order to have the experience, there must be something in the subject's environment to be experienced.

Spinoza said mind is experience of the body. (I.e. organs of special sense such as the eyes or the taste buds) . Body and mind are two components of the same experience. Body is obviously part of the physical sphere, i.e extended matter, that includes air and food, plants and other people, optical conditions for colour awareness.

"Oh look there is something Red out there in my field of view".

There are three specially important function words in that sentence: 'is', ' there', and 'my'.

'Is' implies immediate presence. 'There' implies an environment for the thought. 'My' implies a subject of the thought. The absolute idealist claims all of these functions are subjective. If the speaker is scientific they may exclaim "Oh look the chemistry of that paint is such that it makes it possible for us to see red. " If the scientific speaker is also an absolute idealist they may add "Mind you, the theories of optics and of paint chemistry are products of mind. Nobody knows what is 'out there' except that, without mind as pattern maker, it's sheer chaos."

[SteveKlinko]

Added a new paragraph to this section on the website:

Next, I would like to talk about Higher Order Theories of Consciousness with respect to Conscious Experience. There are several different theories that fall into this category, but they all specify that to make a Conscious Experience (first Order) really Conscious, there must be a Secondary Thought (Higher Order) about the original Conscious Experience. So to be specific, they would stipulate that an Experience of Redness cannot become Conscious all by itself because there has to first be a subsequent Higher Order Thought about the Redness such as: "Oh look there is something Red out there in my field of view". In my opinion and my own Experience, this is an Incoherent and unnecessary requirement for Experiencing Redness. I simply Experience Redness without any other thoughts attached. In fact, any other Thought about Redness is just an added Distraction from the Redness Experience as a thing in itself. It is incomprehensible to me as to why they need an Extra Order in their Experience of Redness. They must not have the same kind of Visual Experience that I do, and I am tempted to say they must fall into the category of people that might not have Conscious Experience for Color. See https://theintermind.com/#Zombies. But even worse, the theory can never get to an Explanation for any actual Conscious Experience. There is no way this theory can Explain what the IM is within the theory. How does this theory Explain any Conscious Experience?

Conscious awareness of red is undoubtedly experience. It's also subjective experience as someone may be red/green colour blind. Someone else may not value colour experiences. Someone else may have a psychedelic experience of red.

What all these subjective experiences of red have in common is, in order to have the experience, there must be something in the subject's environment to be experienced.

There is nothing out there to be Experienced in your environment when you are Dreaming. The Colors can be very good.

Spinoza said mind is experience of the body. (I.e. organs of special sense such as the eyes or the taste buds) . Body and mind are two components of the same experience. Body is obviously part of the physical sphere, i.e extended matter, that includes air and food, plants and other people, optical conditions for colour awareness.

"Oh look there is something Red out there in my field of view".

There are three specially important function words in that sentence: 'is', ' there', and 'my'.

'Is' implies immediate presence. 'There' implies an environment for the thought. 'My' implies a subject of the thought. The absolute idealist claims all of these functions are subjective. If the speaker is scientific they may exclaim "Oh look the chemistry of that paint is such that it makes it possible for us to see red. " If the scientific speaker is also an absolute idealist they may add "Mind you, the theories of optics and of paint chemistry are products of mind. Nobody knows what is 'out there' except that, without mind as pattern maker, it's sheer chaos."

But what I was trying to say is that you don't need the extra thought to be able to Experience the Redness. The Redness is Directly and Immediately Experienced.

[Belindi]

Added a new paragraph to this section on the website:

Next, I would like to talk about Higher Order Theories of Consciousness with respect to Conscious Experience. There are several different theories that fall into this category, but they all specify that to make a Conscious Experience (first Order) really Conscious, there must be a Secondary Thought (Higher Order) about the original Conscious Experience. So to be specific, they would stipulate that an Experience of Redness cannot become Conscious all by itself because there has to first be a subsequent Higher Order Thought about the Redness such as: "Oh look there is something Red out there in my field of view". In my opinion and my own Experience, this is an Incoherent and unnecessary requirement for Experiencing Redness. I simply Experience Redness without any other thoughts attached. In fact, any other Thought about Redness is just an added Distraction from the Redness Experience as a thing in itself. It is incomprehensible to me as to why they need an Extra Order in their Experience of Redness. They must not have the same kind of Visual Experience that I do, and I am tempted to say they must fall into the category of people that might not have Conscious Experience for Color. See https://theintermind.com/#Zombies. But even worse, the theory can never get to an Explanation for any actual Conscious Experience. There is no way this theory can Explain what the IM is within the theory. How does this theory Explain any Conscious Experience?

Conscious awareness of red is undoubtedly experience. It's also subjective experience as someone may be red/green colour blind. Someone else may not value colour experiences. Someone else may have a psychedelic experience of red.

What all these subjective experiences of red have in common is, in order to have the experience, there must be something in the subject's environment to be experienced.

There is nothing out there to be Experienced in your environment when you are Dreaming. The Colors can be very good.

Spinoza said mind is experience of the body. (I.e. organs of special sense such as the eyes or the taste buds) . Body and mind are two components of the same experience. Body is obviously part of the physical sphere, i.e extended matter, that includes air and food, plants and other people, optical conditions for colour awareness.

"Oh look there is something Red out there in my field of view".

There are three specially important function words in that sentence: 'is', ' there', and 'my'.

'Is' implies immediate presence. 'There' implies an environment for the thought. 'My' implies a subject of the thought. The absolute idealist claims all of these functions are subjective. If the speaker is scientific they may exclaim "Oh look the chemistry of that paint is such that it makes it possible for us to see red. " If the scientific speaker is also an absolute idealist they may add "Mind you, the theories of optics and of paint chemistry are products of mind. Nobody knows what is 'out there' except that, without mind as pattern maker, it's sheer chaos."

But what I was trying to say is that you don't need the extra thought to be able to Experience the Redness. The Redness is Directly and Immediately Experienced.

The dreamed environment is mostly from memories rather than directly from the organs or special sense.

Regarding your second comment; do you mean there is something about colour peception that is more immediate than perception of tangible shapes or weights?

There is a philosophical theory about how colour is a special perception . I tried a google search and failed to find it. I think I remember this theory is mainly of historical interest now. I used to think perception of colour was more immediate until someone reminded me there are scientific instruments that can detect and measure colours.

[SteveKlinko]

Added a new paragraph to this section on the website:

Next, I would like to talk about Higher Order Theories of Consciousness with respect to Conscious Experience. There are several different theories that fall into this category, but they all specify that to make a Conscious Experience (first Order) really Conscious, there must be a Secondary Thought (Higher Order) about the original Conscious Experience. So to be specific, they would stipulate that an Experience of Redness cannot become Conscious all by itself because there has to first be a subsequent Higher Order Thought about the Redness such as: "Oh look there is something Red out there in my field of view". In my opinion and my own Experience, this is an Incoherent and unnecessary requirement for Experiencing Redness. I simply Experience Redness without any other thoughts attached. In fact, any other Thought about Redness is just an added Distraction from the Redness Experience as a thing in itself. It is incomprehensible to me as to why they need an Extra Order in their Experience of Redness. They must not have the same kind of Visual Experience that I do, and I am tempted to say they must fall into the category of people that might not have Conscious Experience for Color. See https://theintermind.com/#Zombies. But even worse, the theory can never get to an Explanation for any actual Conscious Experience. There is no way this theory can Explain what the IM is within the theory. How does this theory Explain any Conscious Experience?

Conscious awareness of red is undoubtedly experience. It's also subjective experience as someone may be red/green colour blind. Someone else may not value colour experiences. Someone else may have a psychedelic experience of red.

What all these subjective experiences of red have in common is, in order to have the experience, there must be something in the subject's environment to be experienced.

There is nothing out there to be Experienced in your environment when you are Dreaming. The Colors can be very good.

Spinoza said mind is experience of the body. (I.e. organs of special sense such as the eyes or the taste buds) . Body and mind are two components of the same experience. Body is obviously part of the physical sphere, i.e extended matter, that includes air and food, plants and other people, optical conditions for colour awareness.

"Oh look there is something Red out there in my field of view".

There are three specially important function words in that sentence: 'is', ' there', and 'my'.

'Is' implies immediate presence. 'There' implies an environment for the thought. 'My' implies a subject of the thought. The absolute idealist claims all of these functions are subjective. If the speaker is scientific they may exclaim "Oh look the chemistry of that paint is such that it makes it possible for us to see red. " If the scientific speaker is also an absolute idealist they may add "Mind you, the theories of optics and of paint chemistry are products of mind. Nobody knows what is 'out there' except that, without mind as pattern maker, it's sheer chaos."

But what I was trying to say is that you don't need the extra thought to be able to Experience the Redness. The Redness is Directly and Immediately Experienced.

The dreamed environment is mostly from memories rather than directly from the organs or special sense.

The places and things in my Dreams are mostly not places or things I have seen before and which can be in my Memory. The places and things in my Dreams are usually pretty Weird and Concocted. But some Dreams are of things and places that are from Memory. But the point of all this is not where the Dreams come from (even though that is interesting), but what exactly ARE all the Colors that are projected onto my Visual Experience? What is Color and Conscious Light in general?

Regarding your second comment; do you mean there is something about colour peception that is more immediate than perception of tangible shapes or weights?

There is a philosophical theory about how colour is a special perception . I tried a google search and failed to find it. I think I remember this theory is mainly of historical interest now. I used to think perception of colour was more immediate until someone reminded me there are scientific instruments that can detect and measure colours.

Exactly, Scientific instruments can Detect and Measure Color, but they never Experience the Color like we do. If an Instrument flashes an indicator labeled Red, I hope you don't think there is any Experience of Redness going on in the Instrument, do you?

[Belindi]

Added a new paragraph to this section on the website:

Next, I would like to talk about Higher Order Theories of Consciousness with respect to Conscious Experience. There are several different theories that fall into this category, but they all specify that to make a Conscious Experience (first Order) really Conscious, there must be a Secondary Thought (Higher Order) about the original Conscious Experience. So to be specific, they would stipulate that an Experience of Redness cannot become Conscious all by itself because there has to first be a subsequent Higher Order Thought about the Redness such as: "Oh look there is something Red out there in my field of view". In my opinion and my own Experience, this is an Incoherent and unnecessary requirement for Experiencing Redness. I simply Experience Redness without any other thoughts attached. In fact, any other Thought about Redness is just an added Distraction from the Redness Experience as a thing in itself. It is incomprehensible to me as to why they need an Extra Order in their Experience of Redness. They must not have the same kind of Visual Experience that I do, and I am tempted to say they must fall into the category of people that might not have Conscious Experience for Color. See https://theintermind.com/#Zombies. But even worse, the theory can never get to an Explanation for any actual Conscious Experience. There is no way this theory can Explain what the IM is within the theory. How does this theory Explain any Conscious Experience?

Conscious awareness of red is undoubtedly experience. It's also subjective experience as someone may be red/green colour blind. Someone else may not value colour experiences. Someone else may have a psychedelic experience of red.

What all these subjective experiences of red have in common is, in order to have the experience, there must be something in the subject's environment to be experienced.

There is nothing out there to be Experienced in your environment when you are Dreaming. The Colors can be very good.

Spinoza said mind is experience of the body. (I.e. organs of special sense such as the eyes or the taste buds) . Body and mind are two components of the same experience. Body is obviously part of the physical sphere, i.e extended matter, that includes air and food, plants and other people, optical conditions for colour awareness.

"Oh look there is something Red out there in my field of view".

There are three specially important function words in that sentence: 'is', ' there', and 'my'.

'Is' implies immediate presence. 'There' implies an environment for the thought. 'My' implies a subject of the thought. The absolute idealist claims all of these functions are subjective. If the speaker is scientific they may exclaim "Oh look the chemistry of that paint is such that it makes it possible for us to see red. " If the scientific speaker is also an absolute idealist they may add "Mind you, the theories of optics and of paint chemistry are products of mind. Nobody knows what is 'out there' except that, without mind as pattern maker, it's sheer chaos."

But what I was trying to say is that you don't need the extra thought to be able to Experience the Redness. The Redness is Directly and Immediately Experienced.

True, dreams are seldom true to life however they are surreal contortions of memories of real places and events.

If you describe something as surreal, you mean that the elements in it are combined in a strange way that you would not normally expect, like in a dream.

Collins Dictionary]

You don't usually need the extra thought to experience pain, or pressure on your skin, or fatigue, or heat/cold, or how to balance yourself when you walk, or even in most circumstances how to handle your car.

On the other hand art colourists , aesthetic gardeners, and fashion masters do give a lot of thought to the use of red , other hues , and shades and tones of red and could not do what they set out to do unless they conceptualise.

Moreover torturers , diagnosticians , and physiotherapists give a lot of thought to degrees and qualities of pain and other discomforts. When a pain is imminent like when the nurse is going to give you a hypodermic jab they tell you "Just a sharp scratch" so the concept of the pain or discomfort does not cause anxiety. Conceptualising sensory information is useful. Testing urine samples etc with litmus paper there is actually a mnemonic rhyme for conceptualising the significance of blue or of red.

A quale may qualify red, other hues, or any other sensory information such as pain or physical effort. Moreover any quale of whatever sort of sensory information is relative to other quale that happen at the same time.

[SteveKlinko]

Added a new paragraph to this section on the website:

Next, I would like to talk about Higher Order Theories of Consciousness with respect to Conscious Experience. There are several different theories that fall into this category, but they all specify that to make a Conscious Experience (first Order) really Conscious, there must be a Secondary Thought (Higher Order) about the original Conscious Experience. So to be specific, they would stipulate that an Experience of Redness cannot become Conscious all by itself because there has to first be a subsequent Higher Order Thought about the Redness such as: "Oh look there is something Red out there in my field of view". In my opinion and my own Experience, this is an Incoherent and unnecessary requirement for Experiencing Redness. I simply Experience Redness without any other thoughts attached. In fact, any other Thought about Redness is just an added Distraction from the Redness Experience as a thing in itself. It is incomprehensible to me as to why they need an Extra Order in their Experience of Redness. They must not have the same kind of Visual Experience that I do, and I am tempted to say they must fall into the category of people that might not have Conscious Experience for Color. See https://theintermind.com/#Zombies. But even worse, the theory can never get to an Explanation for any actual Conscious Experience. There is no way this theory can Explain what the IM is within the theory. How does this theory Explain any Conscious Experience?

Conscious awareness of red is undoubtedly experience. It's also subjective experience as someone may be red/green colour blind. Someone else may not value colour experiences. Someone else may have a psychedelic experience of red.

What all these subjective experiences of red have in common is, in order to have the experience, there must be something in the subject's environment to be experienced.

There is nothing out there to be Experienced in your environment when you are Dreaming. The Colors can be very good.

Spinoza said mind is experience of the body. (I.e. organs of special sense such as the eyes or the taste buds) . Body and mind are two components of the same experience. Body is obviously part of the physical sphere, i.e extended matter, that includes air and food, plants and other people, optical conditions for colour awareness.

"Oh look there is something Red out there in my field of view".

There are three specially important function words in that sentence: 'is', ' there', and 'my'.

'Is' implies immediate presence. 'There' implies an environment for the thought. 'My' implies a subject of the thought. The absolute idealist claims all of these functions are subjective. If the speaker is scientific they may exclaim "Oh look the chemistry of that paint is such that it makes it possible for us to see red. " If the scientific speaker is also an absolute idealist they may add "Mind you, the theories of optics and of paint chemistry are products of mind. Nobody knows what is 'out there' except that, without mind as pattern maker, it's sheer chaos."

But what I was trying to say is that you don't need the extra thought to be able to Experience the Redness. The Redness is Directly and Immediately Experienced.

True, dreams are seldom true to life however they are surreal contortions of memories of real places and events.

If you describe something as surreal, you mean that the elements in it are combined in a strange way that you would not normally expect, like in a dream.

Collins Dictionary]

You don't usually need the extra thought to experience pain, or pressure on your skin, or fatigue, or heat/cold, or how to balance yourself when you walk, or even in most circumstances how to handle your car.

On the other hand art colourists , aesthetic gardeners, and fashion masters do give a lot of thought to the use of red , other hues , and shades and tones of red and could not do what they set out to do unless they conceptualise.

Moreover torturers , diagnosticians , and physiotherapists give a lot of thought to degrees and qualities of pain and other discomforts. When a pain is imminent like when the nurse is going to give you a hypodermic jab they tell you "Just a sharp scratch" so the concept of the pain or discomfort does not cause anxiety. Conceptualising sensory information is useful. Testing urine samples etc with litmus paper there is actually a mnemonic rhyme for conceptualising the significance of blue or of red.

A quale may qualify red, other hues, or any other sensory information such as pain or physical effort. Moreover any quale of whatever sort of sensory information is relative to other quale that happen at the same time.

Of course Artists give a lot of thought about Colors when choosing them for their work. But that is not what I am talking about. The issue was that in order for someone to Experience a Color they need to think about it a little. I maintain that you simply Directly and Immediately Experience it. The Context of the particular Color that you are Experiencing is Irrelevant. It is the Color that you Experience, whatever it is, that is the issue. It doesn't matter what optical illusion is pre processing the Color. There will be that final Color that you Experience. What is that Color Experience? That is always the question that Science cannot answer.

[Belindi]

Conscious awareness of red is undoubtedly experience. It's also subjective experience as someone may be red/green colour blind. Someone else may not value colour experiences. Someone else may have a psychedelic experience of red.

What all these subjective experiences of red have in common is, in order to have the experience, there must be something in the subject's environment to be experienced.

There is nothing out there to be Experienced in your environment when you are Dreaming. The Colors can be very good.

Spinoza said mind is experience of the body. (I.e. organs of special sense such as the eyes or the taste buds) . Body and mind are two components of the same experience. Body is obviously part of the physical sphere, i.e extended matter, that includes air and food, plants and other people, optical conditions for colour awareness.

There are three specially important function words in that sentence: 'is', ' there', and 'my'.

'Is' implies immediate presence. 'There' implies an environment for the thought. 'My' implies a subject of the thought. The absolute idealist claims all of these functions are subjective. If the speaker is scientific they may exclaim "Oh look the chemistry of that paint is such that it makes it possible for us to see red. " If the scientific speaker is also an absolute idealist they may add "Mind you, the theories of optics and of paint chemistry are products of mind. Nobody knows what is 'out there' except that, without mind as pattern maker, it's sheer chaos."

But what I was trying to say is that you don't need the extra thought to be able to Experience the Redness. The Redness is Directly and Immediately Experienced.

True, dreams are seldom true to life however they are surreal contortions of memories of real places and events.

If you describe something as surreal, you mean that the elements in it are combined in a strange way that you would not normally expect, like in a dream.

Collins Dictionary]

You don't usually need the extra thought to experience pain, or pressure on your skin, or fatigue, or heat/cold, or how to balance yourself when you walk, or even in most circumstances how to handle your car.

On the other hand art colourists , aesthetic gardeners, and fashion masters do give a lot of thought to the use of red , other hues , and shades and tones of red and could not do what they set out to do unless they conceptualise.

Moreover torturers , diagnosticians , and physiotherapists give a lot of thought to degrees and qualities of pain and other discomforts. When a pain is imminent like when the nurse is going to give you a hypodermic jab they tell you "Just a sharp scratch" so the concept of the pain or discomfort does not cause anxiety. Conceptualising sensory information is useful. Testing urine samples etc with litmus paper there is actually a mnemonic rhyme for conceptualising the significance of blue or of red.

A quale may qualify red, other hues, or any other sensory information such as pain or physical effort. Moreover any quale of whatever sort of sensory information is relative to other quale that happen at the same time.

Of course Artists give a lot of thought about Colors when choosing them for their work. But that is not what I am talking about. The issue was that in order for someone to Experience a Color they need to think about it a little. I maintain that you simply Directly and Immediately Experience it. The Context of the particular Color that you are Experiencing is Irrelevant. It is the Color that you Experience, whatever it is, that is the issue. It doesn't matter what optical illusion is pre processing the Color. There will be that final Color that you Experience. What is that Color Experience? That is always the question that Science cannot answer.

Always the perceiving subject is active and unlike a camera is not passive. This means that no quale, whether a colour quale or not, is the creation of the perceiving subject. You are not a camera you are active, and the relationship between whatever chemistry causes the stimulus and your active mind is the quale you see, whether or not you also conceptualise it.

[SteveKlinko]

There is nothing out there to be Experienced in your environment when you are Dreaming. The Colors can be very good.


But what I was trying to say is that you don't need the extra thought to be able to Experience the Redness. The Redness is Directly and Immediately Experienced.

True, dreams are seldom true to life however they are surreal contortions of memories of real places and events.

If you describe something as surreal, you mean that the elements in it are combined in a strange way that you would not normally expect, like in a dream.

Collins Dictionary]

You don't usually need the extra thought to experience pain, or pressure on your skin, or fatigue, or heat/cold, or how to balance yourself when you walk, or even in most circumstances how to handle your car.

On the other hand art colourists , aesthetic gardeners, and fashion masters do give a lot of thought to the use of red , other hues , and shades and tones of red and could not do what they set out to do unless they conceptualise.

Moreover torturers , diagnosticians , and physiotherapists give a lot of thought to degrees and qualities of pain and other discomforts. When a pain is imminent like when the nurse is going to give you a hypodermic jab they tell you "Just a sharp scratch" so the concept of the pain or discomfort does not cause anxiety. Conceptualising sensory information is useful. Testing urine samples etc with litmus paper there is actually a mnemonic rhyme for conceptualising the significance of blue or of red.

A quale may qualify red, other hues, or any other sensory information such as pain or physical effort. Moreover any quale of whatever sort of sensory information is relative to other quale that happen at the same time.

Of course Artists give a lot of thought about Colors when choosing them for their work. But that is not what I am talking about. The issue was that in order for someone to Experience a Color they need to think about it a little. I maintain that you simply Directly and Immediately Experience it. The Context of the particular Color that you are Experiencing is Irrelevant. It is the Color that you Experience, whatever it is, that is the issue. It doesn't matter what optical illusion is pre processing the Color. There will be that final Color that you Experience. What is that Color Experience? That is always the question that Science cannot answer.

Always the perceiving subject is active and unlike a camera is not passive. This means that no quale, whether a colour quale or not, is the creation of the perceiving subject. You are not a camera you are active, and the relationship between whatever chemistry causes the stimulus and your active mind is the quale you see, whether or not you also conceptualise it.

But since that Color is generated inside you, that Color is part of what you are. You are the Experience of Redness, Greenness, Blueness etc. You are the Light that you Experience.

[Belindi]

True, dreams are seldom true to life however they are surreal contortions of memories of real places and events.
Collins Dictionary]

You don't usually need the extra thought to experience pain, or pressure on your skin, or fatigue, or heat/cold, or how to balance yourself when you walk, or even in most circumstances how to handle your car.

On the other hand art colourists , aesthetic gardeners, and fashion masters do give a lot of thought to the use of red , other hues , and shades and tones of red and could not do what they set out to do unless they conceptualise.

Moreover torturers , diagnosticians , and physiotherapists give a lot of thought to degrees and qualities of pain and other discomforts. When a pain is imminent like when the nurse is going to give you a hypodermic jab they tell you "Just a sharp scratch" so the concept of the pain or discomfort does not cause anxiety. Conceptualising sensory information is useful. Testing urine samples etc with litmus paper there is actually a mnemonic rhyme for conceptualising the significance of blue or of red.

A quale may qualify red, other hues, or any other sensory information such as pain or physical effort. Moreover any quale of whatever sort of sensory information is relative to other quale that happen at the same time.

Of course Artists give a lot of thought about Colors when choosing them for their work. But that is not what I am talking about. The issue was that in order for someone to Experience a Color they need to think about it a little. I maintain that you simply Directly and Immediately Experience it. The Context of the particular Color that you are Experiencing is Irrelevant. It is the Color that you Experience, whatever it is, that is the issue. It doesn't matter what optical illusion is pre processing the Color. There will be that final Color that you Experience. What is that Color Experience? That is always the question that Science cannot answer.

Always the perceiving subject is active and unlike a camera is not passive. This means that no quale, whether a colour quale or not, is the creation of the perceiving subject. You are not a camera you are active, and the relationship between whatever chemistry causes the stimulus and your active mind is the quale you see, whether or not you also conceptualise it.

But since that Color is generated inside you, that Color is part of what you are. You are the Experience of Redness, Greenness, Blueness etc. You are the Light that you Experience.

Thank you. I wholeheartedly agree and this conversation has been productive. "You are the Light that you Experience." sums it up.

[Consul]

But since that Color is generated inside you, that Color is part of what you are. You are the Experience of Redness, Greenness, Blueness etc. You are the Light that you Experience.

Color-experiences are part of my mind; but, using John Foster's distinction between mental items (items of mentality) and mental subjects (subjects of mentality), color-experiences are mental items, whereas I qua mental subject am not a mental item or a complex of mental items.

[Belindi]

But since that Color is generated inside you, that Color is part of what you are. You are the Experience of Redness, Greenness, Blueness etc. You are the Light that you Experience.

Color-experiences are part of my mind; but, using John Foster's distinction between mental items (items of mentality) and mental subjects (subjects of mentality), color-experiences are mental items, whereas I qua mental subject am not a mental item or a complex of mental items.

What does "my" signify in your first sentence? If experiences are other than you who has experiences, what sort of ontological being are you? Are you extended matter with a mind or a soul embodied in it? Are you a mind that creates the idea of extended matter?

[Consul]

What does "my" signify in your first sentence? If experiences are other than you who has experiences, what sort of ontological being are you? Are you extended matter with a mind or a soul embodied in it? Are you a mind that creates the idea of extended matter?

I am a human animal, and my mind is my brain.

[Belindi]

What does "my" signify in your first sentence? If experiences are other than you who has experiences, what sort of ontological being are you? Are you extended matter with a mind or a soul embodied in it? Are you a mind that creates the idea of extended matter?

I am a human animal, and my mind is my brain.

The objection to the identity theory of mind and brain is brain and mind have different attributes.