0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I'd like to try doing the same thing with switching colours round, and inverting some (or all of them) in terms of brightness. The range of colours and shades available should be the same, though fewer can be expressed in the blue, so just switching red and green round would be best, but we can work fairly well with a reduced range without it being obvious, so it may not be too important. If you brought up a baby wearing such a device it would grow up thinking the colours it sees are absolutely normal, and that white is dark while black is light (if you're reversing the brightnesses). Whether someone could adapt to it well later in life is another issue, and would be well worth doing the experiment.
Would any of you care to define what it is you are trying to measure? A functional definition will suffice for a start, as in "consciousness is that which....."
Since additive and subtractive color mixing works differently, I was wondering if you'd end up with discrepancies if people really did have inverted qualia.
With mixing paint, there are several ways to make brown. If you did it one way and I did another, and we had inverted red green, would we agree on the final color?
Francis Crick was lecturing on consciousness at the Salk Institute and a student raised his hand an said "But professor Crick, you say you are going to lecture on the neural mechanisms of consciousness, and you haven't even bothered to define the word properly." Crick said "My dear Chap, there was never a time in the history of biology when a group of us sat around a table and saying 'let's define life first.'We just went out there and found out what it was - a double helix. We leave matters of semantic distinctions to you philosophers."
I agree that not having an adequate definition can be a problem....
Consciousness is that which: "establishes the communion between the self to it's environment."Consider the word; "Myself"This is a compound word consisting of two words; My and self. The "My" establishes ownership of the following word "self". To understand the significance of this union, one needs to grasp the notion that the "My" refers to the physical attributes of one's existence and the "self" extends to the ethereal portion of this alliance between body and mind.There is no absolute evidence that this alliance exists without both participants being involved. Until that evidence surfaces, we can only speculate, and speculation is not science.
Can be a problem? This thread has been impaled on it right from the start.