"John Clark" <jonkc@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >If you try to ignore the atoms and energy, and just try to have
"redness"
> >exist by itself without any reliance on the real world, you are
defining a
> >mystical soul.
>
> Nonsense. Redness is not light waves, if I sit in a dark room and put a
little
> pressure on my eyeball I can see red flashes. I don't even need to do
that,
> I can just remember what redness looks like.
Semantics again. There is a defined wavelength of light called red. There
is a defined sensory cone in the eye that is called a red-receptor. There
is a defined chemical loss in the retina associated with red. There is a
defined signal along the optic nerve that denotes red. There is a defined
perception in the brain called red. There is a defined memory encoding that
stores red.
To argue that one is red while the others are not red, is meaningless. You
are still arguing a subjective classification system. They are all parts of
"red" data as it is transmitted from the source object to the destination
memory storage. How can one part of the journey be more real than other
parts?
-- Harvey Newstrom <http://HarveyNewstrom.com> IBM Certified Senior Security Consultant, Legal Hacker, Engineer, Research Scientist, Author.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:11:22 MDT