This is not the summary – I will write that soon enough. I’m not so sure in fact what this is 
.
Today, I thought, we were not very organized. Things could have been clearer. Sorry for that. I’m waiting for your reactions to estimate the damage done. I will come back to the central issues about definitions in the summary. And let’s see what you have to say about the problems faced by the ‘classical theory’. Don’t be shy.
It is not a problem if we get carried away in discussions. But we shouldn’t overdo it. Anyway, here are some of the things that came up today.
1. The question about colorblind people having color concepts:
> Oliver Sacks wrote a book called ‘The Island of the Colorblind’. Here is a review. I have the book - if any of you is really interested, let me know. The linked review will also tell you some things about Knut Nordby, the colorblind color scientist. And this is the island in question.
> In 1982 Frank Jackson wrote a famous paper called ‘Epiphenomenal Qualia’. The paper is famous mostly for the story [i.e. thought experiment] of Mary. What would happen if someone that was never exposed to colors sees something red? Suppose that person knows all the science of color already. Will the person learn something new? Btw, David Lodge uses this scenario in one of his novels – ‘Thinks…’. Can’t tell you much, I haven’t read it. Here is a review.
> My green is your red; we use the same names for colors, but they ‘feel’ different. How could we ever tell? This kind of example is called ‘inverted spectrum’ in philosophy. Read about it here. What about pain?
2. Neural networks [this is not directly relevant for what we're doing at this point, but we might talk about such things in the future]
> Basic stuff on Wikipedia
A nice weekend & many martisoare!
March 5, 2008 at 11:30 pm
I wouldn’t say that any damage was done. I like this kind of discussions: that begin in a point and go in various directions. Of course, there should be a main (let’s call it) “thread”, and we’ll get to achieve the ability to “move around” it. But I’m not a fan of sticking to the thread entirely. Let us vary
Things could have been clearer, but there’s no point in being totally clear (and of course, this is quite impossible) as long as we’re talking about concepts: they define our environment, our mind, our everything. They’re virtually everywhere, so that’s why we got to talk about “everything” (or “many” things).