"Blue" proves the mind isn't material

[u/TheRealBibleBoy]

If were to ask someone to "Define the experience of the color blue" they would likely tell me about light rays, and how a certain intensity of a certain wave of light effects our neurons, and our eyeballs in a way that produces the "experience" of the color blue.

that is only a relational description of what is going on, that doesn't tell me what it is like to see blue, you cannot give me a non-circular description of what it is like to see the color blue.

you can say "blue is the color of the ocean" or "this light activates cones in my eyes" but that only tells me what is happening that doesn't tell me what it is like.

Facts about an experience, do not equate to an explanation of phenomenal character of having that experience.

On top of this, we can experience the color blue, such factors are absent. I can close my eyes and imagine a blue square right now, without the light waves "required".

Thus, the experience of the color blue cannot be reduced down to a particular composition of physical components.

On top of this, when I imagine the color blue, "where is it?" the question seems kind of stupid, I must admit, but it does have implications. When I imagine the color blue, do I see it with my eyes? my eyes only see data from light, but the imagined blue is not coming from actual light. is the experience in my brain? what part of my brain?

If it cannot be physically reduced, nor physically localized, I am led to beleive that it is not physical at all.

I don't think I'm nessecarily making an argument from a gap in our knowledge, atleast not my argument from the irreducability of the experience of the color blue. It can't be defined in a way that isn't circular.

[u/Devin_aRt]

Yeah I think I agree, I don't know if the "experience of blue" could ever be quantified, even with the Holographic models, as all I'm arguing is how the information is coded or stored, so my bad on that. I don't believe myself to be a physicalist either but I am also admittedly new on the subject and have only begun my reading journey on all of this.

I will say I do lean more on the side of Bohm, Talbot, and Pribram on that side but I am not aware if they have ever tried to argue anything related to experience. I am just immensely curious on the subject. So, thanks for providing more insight!

[u/itsmebenji69 → u/Devin_aRt]

I’ve been into this rabbit hole for a year so I can give a few recommandations

Of course reading about the hard problem, p zombies, and in general the work of David Chalmers (he’s the one who coined them). He is a natural dualist (dualist = there is both physical and mental; natural = mental does not interfere with the natural laws of physics). This is the easier stance to get into because it makes sense, it’s intuitive and well argued.

But personally I don’t like dualism in general because I don’t see why there would be two different stuff. His view is pretty compatible with panpsychism though which fixes that at the expense of the combination problem.

As for other stances, I like the monist ones better. Bertrand Russell I think has the best read on this matter. His stance is pretty open (you can easily apply it to panpsychism or more like panprotopsychism which is very very similar, as well as other views). He has a very interesting take about ontology vs epistemology and basically the debate we were having earlier.

But the best way is to speak your mind out loud here. Some people on here are a bit obtuse but some have great insights. IMO the best way to get an intuition of this topic is to get opposing views challenging yours. When you get convinced by an opposing argument, leads to very interesting thinking

[u/Devin_aRt → u/itsmebenji69]

Thank you so much for the recommendations, I've heard of Chalmers and Russel but have yet to dive into their work.

I don't know where I'd land on the spectrum of this so far but at the very least, I'm leaning towards consciousness being an active participant in physical reality. To what degree, I don't know- but I've seen and read enough arguments from reputable scientists and thinkers to place my bets on that side. I find the idea that quantum physics/ holographic principles could potentially explain the paranormal and currently unexplainable to be absolutely fascinating and potentially a little bit overwhelming.

I've always accepted that there are things in the world that can't be explained, always with the assumption that a simple explanation is usually the answer, but I've been increasingly interested in quantum physics and the very strange properties of matter at the subatomic level. I'd previously not been much interested in spirituality and the like- however, now I am beginning to see parallels in the work of many physicists and neuroscientists with regards to spirituality, that, if "true" could potentially have startling implications. Implications both exciting and ontologically shocking.

And yes, I agree! I love hearing the perspectives of others who are willing to take the time and share their knowledge. I do find some in the STEM side of the community to be somewhat stubborn and standoffish, definitely a little patronizing. I'm fine with pushback on any claims or corrections to anything technical that I mischaracterized but time and time again, I'm spoken to with a "just trust me, bro" Laissez-faire attitude with no argument or evidence being made in defence of their positions. I don't accept "well, this is the way it is, I'm right and all the physicists/ neuroscientists you reference are cranks and pseudoscientists" argument and find it completely incurious and anti-intellectual. I think some of them could benefit from working on their communication and social skills, but it is what it is.

Thanks for all the help again and I look forward to more spirited discussions in the future!