That visual consciousness seems 'mysterious' is an ancient
intergenerationally-handed-down 'prejudice' - a thing that's
'familiar' [TD E/I-minimized] in its ancient 'intractability', and,
since it's always discussed in a way that 'celebrates' such [because
doing so is 'expected' of folks who are 'good players' in the
'club'], it's been perpetuated that way.
This ancient prejudice arose back when nothing was known about
Science, let alng with respect to EM radiation, and just became the
'familiar' thing. Then, as organized Religion developed, it came to
be further sustained through sanctions against supposed 'heresies'
folks' expressions of 'wonder' with respect to stuff that was held to
fall into the realm of the Supernatural - folks were burned at the
stake, etc., if they ventured to 'wonder' with respect to such stuff.
Then, just when Religion began to learn from its Error with respect
to Galileo's testimony to what he saw with his own two eyes, Science
stepped in to assert its own version of the same 'sanctions' stuff.
And here I am, being 'burned at the stake' for just sharing what I
see with my own two eyes :-]
Anyway, consider somatosensation. 'Visual consciousness' seems
'difficult', not because it actually is, but merely because of the
ancient prejudice that's being carried forward, intergenerationally.
'Visual consciousness' occurs in a way that's =exactly= analogous to
the way in which 'somatosensory consciousness' occurs, except that
the energy which activates the sensory receptors involved occurs in a
'different' form. EM in vision, 'contact' in somatosensation.
Both 'senses' are rigorously mapped into the "special topological
homeomorphism of central nervous systems" in massively-parallel,
massively-multijective, massively-integrated ways. Proprioception
maintains the "special topological homeomorphism's rigorous
correlation to 'self' throughout the relam of the body's
conformational variation, as is discussed in AoK, Ap6, taking care of
dynamic variations inherent in TD E/I-minimization necessities such
as the palm of the hand being over a hot object or under it - the
'moving away from' behaviors are 'opposites', but it's all still
'just' TD E/I-minimization because, also via TD E/I-minimization
[within "crumpled-bag" nuclei like the inferior olive] the joint
receptors' activation 'translates' the "special topological
homeomorphism's 3-D coordinate system as joint angles vary.
So, all any 'sense' has to do is communicate an 'accurate'
representation of the external 3-D energydynamics in a way that's
rigorously-mapped into the "special topological homeomorphism", and
the overall massive-integration 'knows' what to do with it via 'just'
more TD E/I-minimization.
Stop 'thinking' that "visual consciousness" is 'difficult'. Given
receptors that respond selectively to narrow bands within the
visual-spectrum EM radiation that falls upon the retina, 'seeing
colors' is the same-stuff as 'feeling a rigid object'. Why is
'vision' held to be 'more-difficult' than 'touch'?
It isn't. Neither are 'difficult'. Both are =just= what happens
within nervous systems with respect to the impinging of external
energydynamics upon the sensory receptors.
Both were 'just' 'unfamiliar'.
Seeing "red" is =just= the action of rigorously-mapped neural
architecture that traces back to cones that respond to "red" 'light'.
Feeling vibration, or the crawling of a bug on one's arm, is =just=
the action of rigorously-mapped neural architecture that traces back
to "touch" receptors that respond to the force and frequency of the
energy imparted by the vibration or the bug's crawling.
Folks've 'wondered' about why the colors in vision are so gloriously
'true to Life', but Truth is that they are actually not. They are
just an extremely-selective, very-small subset of all EM radiation -
just what we need to 'see' to "save [us] from getting a bump on the
head" [AoK, Ap6]. Most of the EM that's out-there just whizzes-by our
nervous systems undetected. If 'vision' were Tru to Life, we'd see it
all - and how burdensome that'd be [although, I'd like it very much
if I could, at least for a little while, see infrared, 'cause then I
could look on a body and 'see' its 'embrace' of WDB2T :-]
Get it? 'Visual consciousness' is =just= what happens within our
nervous systems, converged-upon and refined during the course of
evolutionary dynamics with respect to the relative values of this or
that with respect to Survival. We 'think' it's 'special' be-cause
it's all we've ever experienced, but it's =just= this
highly-specific, relatively-small stuff that is rigorously-mapped
into "the special topological homeomorphisms' of our nervous systems.
We 'see' red be-cause, there's a cone that responds to 'red' 'light'
rigorously-mapped within the retinae of our eyes. [Other stuff, like
our blood being 'red' ["iron"-content not withstanding] is probably
an evolutionarily-selected thing that makes blood visually-distinct
from the more-mundane colors of the external environment [back in
ancient times, not in Los Vagus :-] This allows 'bleeding' to be a
universally apparent 'alarm' condition. Such 'subtlties' go on
'forever', and our nervous systems 'just' tightly-integrate them all
via global TD E.I-minimization.
'Consciousness' is =just= what happens within our nervous systems,
given all of this 'engineering' with respect to TD E/I-minimization.
Get it?
K. P. Collins
--
"Schmitd! Schmitd! Ve vill build a Shapel!"
"KP-PC" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%> wrote in message
news:JHrsa.62799$cO3.4190669 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| [...]
