Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: talanum1 on 16/03/2021 18:31:45
-
What's it like to experience a quality? One can only tell what it's like in terms of other sense data linked to a name. But often there is no name, for example, if we want to tell what it's like to see the color red.
-
What's it like to experience a quality? One can only tell what it's like in terms of other sense data linked to a name. But often there is no name, for example, if we want to tell what it's like to see the color red.
The color red has a very specific wavelength and energy. The energy connected to the color red enters the eyes and then the brain, triggering specific neurons to fire a certain way. Describing this brain induction with words may be difficult, since words; sound waves, will not trigger the same neurons as light. They are at two different energy levels. This makes them unique to each other in terms of brain induction. Without something already in memory to compare, this transfer is difficult if not impossible.
What you would need to do is find a source of red, and allow the other person use their eyes to get the red energy color baseline formed in their brain. The same types of neurons, in both your brains, will be triggered by the same red input source. You can now both agree on red, based on each of you able to point out other objects, with the same color, since these would also trigger the same neurons and activate the original memories in both of you.
Words are based on audio signals which are of longer wavelength. They use different parts of the brain for initial processing before writing to memory. We can associate the verbal word "red" and visual signals, two sources come together, to form a composite memory, so the word can trigger the attached memory of red, or the color red can trigger the attached noise or sound "red". Now I can say red and you can remember the objects we agreed on, creating a meeting of the minds.
Written and spoken language is subjective and arbitrary, while the visual input is universal and common to all humans. The visual input of red photons and energy is the same for all, with a few color blind exceptions. Man does not decide the wavelength of red. That is natural. On the other hand, there are 6500 different languages in the world. The sound waves of these 6500 languages multiplies even further is we include regional dialects of the same language. southern drawl versus yankee dialect. The word for red can be any noise, we agree on.
The subjectivity of language and the universal nature of the visual language, allow fake news to mess with your head, by creating irrational composites between sight and sound. This works easier if you don't habitually use the universal language of sight, to create a baselines against standards in all spoken languages.
For example, during the US riots of 2020, a CNN reporter was reporting a peaceful protests, using the sounds and noise his mouth made. At the same time, things burned behind him; visual input evidence. The visual is universal and objective and can be seen by all humans. We can all see fire. The noises of the reporter were subjective, and any noise can form the composite. If you allowed that irrational set of noises; based on languages baselines, to attach to the visual input, it could fake your brain into misinterpreting what you saw.
The Progressive brain seems to have more of these screwup induced and accepted. They favor the subjectivity of noises; clever words, over the universal language of sight. It has to do with feminization since the female brain is more about verbal language. They somehow think nosies are universal and that sight is secondary and subjective. It could be due to brain damage. It also explains many of their bizarre beliefs that fail the universal visual photon-neuron standards.
Magic is interesting. Many tricks try to fool the eyes so the visual standard is brought into question. If the magic appears to be true to the eyes; levitation, one can argue that it can be replaced by the verbal standard. We then have to take the word of the magicians that levitation is indeed true. The countering move would be to find visual evidence; how the tricks works, so what you are being told can be seen as a trick.
-
They favor the subjectivity of noises; clever words, over the universal language of sight.
LOL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inauguration_of_Donald_Trump#Crowd_size
The Progressive brain seems to have more of these screwup induced and accepted.
It wasn't the progressives who had to invent the term "alternative facts" to explain Trump's lies, was it?
It has to do with feminization since the female brain is more about verbal language.
No, because, no.
It also explains many of their bizarre beliefs that fail the universal visual photon-neuron standards.
No
You really must learn to stop saying things that are not true.
But probably not here because your gibberish had nothing to do with the topic.
-
You can now both agree on red, based on each of you able to point out other objects, with the same color, since these would also trigger the same neurons and activate the original memories in both of you.
First of all: because brains aren't the same one can only find neurons that are similar (by their locations in the brains's structures). Second there is no way of knowing if similar neurons produce similar sensations.
-
Perfectly correct talanum1 and a question that confuses me too :)
We define it as we see the same, and we can prove it too. You show me something red and I probably will agree on it being red. We could discuss it in form of the light reflected, giving us a 'same information' but is it the exact same process for us both interpreting it?
Is my definition of red yours too?
-
Is my definition of red yours too?
No, my red is your grey. You however call it red, in agreement with me.
-
Note that I could have stated: "Your grey is my red." or "Your red is my grey." it means the same thing.
-
Yeah, I think I see what you're aiming at.
-
Note that I could have stated: "Your grey is my red." or "Your red is my grey." it means the same thing.
This comes down to spoken and written language being different from the the raw visual data we see. Language is subjective and arbitrary, but visual input data is objective and universal.
As a simple thought experiment, say we had a large lecture hall with 6500 people in the audience. Each person was hand selected, because each speaks one of the 6500 known languages of the world. In the first experiment, I will place objects on a table at center stage. I will ask each person to tell me what they see.
The result will be up to 6500 different noises and sounds, made by the audience, for each object. The noises and sounds of spoken and written language are completely arbitrary and subjective. There is no natural cause and affect between objects and noises used for language as 6500 different languages shows. Language adds confusion. Many scientists believe language is needed to think. If you buy that farm, and we use the subjective tool of language to think, we will, by default, add subjective confusion to what we see and think. It is like measuring distance with a stick that is not calibrated the same for all.
In the next experiment, I will ask each audience member to draw what they see. In this case, the words and noises of the world's 6500 languages will be suspended. What you will find is our visual senses are governed by something much closer to a universal visual language. The drawings may vary in quality, due to drawing skill, but all will roughly duplicate the same things. We could have done this by having the audience have pictures of 10 objects that they need to pick from to represent what they see. There is a cause and affect at work with making sight part of a universal language common to all humans.
This is why in science and the scientific method, different teams from different countries will need to duplicate each others experiments; seeing is believing. The scientific method does not take your word for it, since language is subjective, and one person's noise may sound proper to them, but it could mean something different to other teams.
With spoken language, even the same words, in the same language, can have different meanings and can create confusion. In the pop artist's, Michael Jackson song "Bad", the word "bad" meant good in street language, since by being "bad", others will fear and respect you adding to your prestige and security.
But to other people, not from the rough streets, hearing that sound or noise, "bad" to describe Joe, will bring to mind good versus evil; with "evil" "bad: Joe adding to the confusion. The subjective loopholes of language; slang, can alter how minds tries to interpret what they see to get along within the herd. Now there is a debate over a done visual deal, and Joe becomes good to some and notorious to others. If we don't trust the visual language, we can go down the rabbit hole and form cliques.
In politics, the commandeering of language is often used to divide people or give certain people an irrational advantage. It is all based on trying to create subjective confusion with language. In the USA, for example, the term "racist" was commandeered by the Left and redefined to mean only a thing a white person does to other races.
Visually, using the universal language of sight, one can compare and see the same actions of racism, in all races, based on similar behavior patterns. However, one is being trained to ignore the universal language of sight, and only accept subjective language addendum, so as to create confusion for fun and profit. Facebook and Twitter will even censor you, if you are not living properly in the alternate reality of their subjective tribe. Maybe the visual language needs to be deemed the final say, just as they did in science. Language is the con artist's best friend.
Don't get me wrong, language is needed to communicate with others since we cannot easily transfer the visual language telepathically, nor are we all artist or people who carry encyclopedias with us, so we can point to visual thoughts. Language was more portable but it had some quirks that continue to plague humans. I prefer place the visual language first and then try to do my best to use the subjective language, second, for ease of end use.
I would guess the story of the Tower of Babel, where everyone begins to speak different languages, was describing a time in history when there was a major acceleration in the subjectivity of spoken language. This cause humans to become more divided. Speaking in tongues is a similar type of natural brain output process. In this case, each person has their own language; some assembly required.