> real and have qualities. Green is something real that has qualities.
If Green is 'real', then could you perhaps point it out to me? I find
Dennett's theory (that colors are simply tags we attach to certain kinds
of incoming data) far more convincing than yours.
> with something more tangible like color itself. Too many people
> mistakenly think the color green is something beyond your eye on the
> surface of a tree and an idea is something in your mind.
But you just said that Green is something real, now you seem to be
reversing that claim to say that Green is indeed merely a tag inside our
heads.
> Also, most people reject the notion of abstract uploading
> because deep down they know there is something spiritual inside of us.
No, they reject it because they believe that there's something 'spiritual'
inside themselves because that's what everyone's told them.
> Blue is not some
> abstract representation of a particular wavelength of light.
Then what is it? You seem to be reversing your opinion again.
> These are my thoughs on this subject, what do you think? Do
> you fear or wince at the idea of calling it "spiritual" stuff? If so
> then why?
I for one don't fear it, I just find it pointless because it tells us
absolutely nothing new. Treating the brain as a computer explains the vast
majority of our observations about human behaviour. We don't need to
bring 'spirits' into this.
Mark
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|Mark Grant M.A., U.L.C. EMAIL: mark@unicorn.com |
|WWW: http://www.unicorn.com/ MAILBOT: bot@unicorn.com |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|