= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Tyrrell_McAllister comments on Consciousness - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (221)
I don't understand where this perceived confusion comes from (despite, or because, I read much of the relevant literature).
If we have an electronic device that emits light at 450THz and another that detects light and reports what "color" it is (red), then we can build/execute all of that without accounting for "redness" (except of course in the step where it decides what to call the "color"). Is there a problem here?
Is color a special topic here? Do we have the same issues in phenomenology of sound?
If we have an electronic device that outputs sound at 264.298 Hz and another that detects sound and reports the "musical note" (middle C) then we can build/execute all of that without reference to "middle C -ness". Is this a problem?
Since we can presumably generate the appropriate signals in the optic nerve from scratch if we choose, light and its wavelength have nothing whatsoever to do with color.
Downvoted for strange non sequitur. We could theoretically pipe in the appropriate electrical impulses to the part of your brain responsible for auditory processing, but that doesn't mean hearing has "nothing whatsoever" to do with sound.
The upvote was mine; I agree that 'nothing whatsoever' was too strong, but thought that the point about qualia observably having more to do with brainstates than the stimulii that evoke them was useful.