My model simplifies all human actions into 2 categories. Wants and needs. Needs are what a species requires for survival. Food, shelter, procreation , etc. What do we all want? We want happiness. All human actions are about satisfying our wants and needs. Sometimes, both, but never neither. The list is things which satisfy our wants and needs, in order of priority, and preference (makes us the most happy ).
That's my point, very few people understand the process, but they can all See the rainbow. It is common usage that a rainbow is the perceived arch of colours, not the process.
You don't Need a preference for every possible scenario. You only need a basic set that covers every possible scenario. For example, let's say you don't like spicy food. You don't have to try chicken curry, beef curry, mutton curry, fish curry, from every curry shop in every city, in every country in the world, to know you won't like it. A basic set of preferences can cover all situations.
So you say. Do you prefer summer to winter? Tea or coffee? Chocolate or vanilla ice cream? What determines those preferences?
Billions. But all it takes is one shred of evidence to make it a wrong theory. So far all anyone has offered I unsubstantiated opinions. Do you get my point. One simple, "Its impossible because of X " can save me wasting my time pursuing the idea.
Oh, I am. But is there anything wrong with asking for help from people who might already know the answer?
How often have you had to change your name to Thomas John Walterson and move to Australia? More importantly, If you thereafter had to change your name to Thomas John Pieterson and move to New Zealand, does I make sense to draw up a compel new list of or and cons, or to just alter the preexisting list? I never said the list covers all possible scenarios. I'm talk in about a list of basics which when applied, determine your action. For example, do you like hot or cold weather? Apply to scenario. By applying the basic list, you can resolve even unimagined scenarios. You don't make up a preference for tea or coffee each time you are offered tea or coffee. The preference is already determined.
Far from it. I appreciate your honesty. I know I my mind is untrained. I don't explain myself properly. I can't get the concepts i have in my head accross to other people. I will try harder. Thanks.
So what? A camera records a light pattern which it later emits to our eyes, resulting in a visual representation. A rainbow is link any other image in a mirror. A virtual image. It exists in the mind of the observer. The same way two people see two different images in a mirror. Technically, we each see two images. One for each eye. We also see two rainbows, uncles we are looking at an image on a screen.
That, combined with maslows hierarchy of needs as the operating procedure of the subconscious.
The point is that a photon is a boson particle. At the moment we detect a collision, the photon ceases to exist. Prior to the collision a photon existed. We can only ever detect where and when a photon has struck something. Never the photon itself.
I never claimed to be right. I'm just asking if there's evidence I'm wrong.
Does an electron prefer a lower orbital? Is this a physical thing which has a preference about the world? Indirectly it shows that matter prefers to have less energy. You could say the universe prefers entropy. Consciousness is simply awareness of our preferences.
I'm trying to point out the difference between detecting something and detecting it's effect. We detect the spike in energy resulting from light striking something. https://books.google.co.za/books?dq=do+we+see+or+feel+photons%3F&hl=en&id=rPNHAwAAQBAJ&lpg=PA109&ots=z-SPeSNkqN&pg=PA109&sa=X&sig=DNk__1lCk-GcaYSeMXSSoBeUsFs&source=bl&ved=0ahUKEwiytpf1m43TAhWBCMAKHZ9vAUEQ6AEIQjAH#v=onepage&q=do%20we%20see%20or%20feel%20photons%3F&f=false
How about this, where does a rainbow exist? Is a rainbow the process which results in a light pattern? Or is a rainbow the arch of colors we perceive in our indirect version of reality?
Qualia fall under input data. The list is preferences like tea or coffee, shower or bathe, black or red, Tec.
If you're straight, you can't choose to be gay. If you're bi, you're attracted to both sexes. Your orientation is fixed.
I made no claims. I simply had an idea I wished to share. I've since discovered that someone else already had this idea.
In debates, you don't get points if someone already agrees with you prior to the debate. You get points if someone changes your opinions. Allocating points to common beliefs simply reinforces the belief, true or not. If 99 out of a hundred people agree that we can't see light, they would never delve deeper into why we can't.
As for your last point, I understand that you consider the absorption of the photon as detection. By your logic, a rock detects light. Do rocks also feel cold?
Just a comment. I'm used to being down voted by people who don't understand my views. I'm even used to people down voting my answers because they disagree, but without actual proof that I'm wrong. I'm used to this happening on OTHER sites. I expected better on LW. It's not that votes mean anything to me directly but it's an indication of the mentality, openmindedness and intelligence of the people on the site. This site is highly regarded in the intellectual community. It falls way short of its reputation.
In his book, "The illusion of conscious will " Wegner asks, "Does the fact that thoughts usually proceed actions actually prove that thoughts are the cause of actions? ". You assume they do.
Wow! That's exactually what i was thinking. The list is just my idea of how our actions are determined, without the involvement of the conscious mind.
No, I'm not confusing the two. Certain actions are performed by the reptilian brain and others by higher functions. Observing professional sportsmen and women it's obvious that even these reflex actions can altered. My point is, if muscle memory can allow us to operate on autopilot, how far does the ability of the subconscious extend? Is it possible the subconscious controls all actions and the conscious only becomes aware post facto.
Now that's what I was looking for. Thanks.
I appreciate your opinion. If you could justify your opinion with supporting evidence I would greatly appreciate it.
The factors are far too complex to predict human behaviour. The list is not perceived consciously. Even if we had the complete list of a person, the situation includes not just external phenomena, but internal variables such as gut bacteria, hormones, etc which combined determines a situation. So a situation which appears the same outwardly could be dramatically different internally.
Like, is detecting light, perceiving light?
The conscious mind can be excluded from thought processes. Only becoming aware, post facto, of the reason an action was performed. I agree it needs work, but is it a line of thought worth pursuing?
Basically because processing information is slow. Generating a list when a situation arrises means the ball hits your head before you can figure out you'd rather not experience the pain. Most of our actions are subconscious, like walking and don't rely on conscious effort.
Light from a building is dispersed, light from a mirror is reflected. With dispersed light, we see (in our minds ) the object dispersing the light. Light disperced by raindrops, makes the raindrops visible. Light reflected by raindrops makes the sun visible.
Sorry, I'm New here. Thanks.
A rainbow consists of millions of tiny reflections of the sun, off the inner, concave , surface of raindrops, having undergone refraction. You're seeing multiple reflections of the sun.
About your example, would a reflection from a mirror qualify? How about a rainbow? Isn't that why the images produced are called virtual images? And don't we see objects?
Would you care to elaborate?
Going by the first comment, I'll reserve judgement go now.
Photons don't interact with photons. A photon only interacts with itself.
A tiny fraction, you say? We'll see! Having argued this point I can tell you from personal experience that a large portion of readers believe we can see actual light.
In other words, a door is a source of light.
I'm saying detection is a mechanical process of which we aren't conscious. Even image creation in the visual cortex is subconscious. We only become conscious of a few objects. We conclude that our eyes detect light, but we do not actually perceive light itself.