1
   

Can You Make Me See Red?

 
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2006 09:46 am
sozobe,

I understand how you feel, sozobe. I wish more had your feeling. I was speaking to those (i.e., Brandon, etc.) that continually ask for that evidence.

And that is exactly what I am going to do from now on! Thanx! :wink:
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2006 09:47 am
Whew!! :-D
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2006 09:51 am
sozobe,

I have to tell you this. I admire the heck out of you. You are straightforward, honest, and compassionate all at one time. I find that so refreshing.

You can disagree with me and leave me with the feeling that it's perfectly acceptable to you that I have different opinions. I think we all can learn something from you. Laughing
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2006 09:57 am
Next topic? :-)
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2006 09:59 am
It IS perfectly acceptable to me if you have different opinions. Homogeneity is boring. ;-)

What I respect about you is that you keep pulling bits of insight and self-reflection out of your hat... it's cool that you are able to wind this up instead of staying one-note.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2006 10:04 am
Intrepid,

I'm working on it! :wink:

sozobe,

http://www.smileys.ws/smls/yahoo/00000060.gif
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2006 01:14 pm
MA,

I have not waded through previous pages so forgive me if this has been said.

The problem with your analogy is that you have proposed a "scientific description" for the the lack of perception of "red" such that even those with the disabilities could agree on indirect (transducer) evidence for its "existence". Indeed the scientific term "color blindness" acknowledges the neural correlates of the disability. Such universal agreement is not the case for "a deity" therefore your analogy fails unless we propose that some of us possess a "God receptor" with distinct neural
correlates. (This was discussed this on a "Neurotheology" thread some time ago. I'll have a look for it and post it later).
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2006 01:19 pm
http://www.able2know.com/forums/about6642-0.html
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2006 01:20 pm
Some blind people can see red:

Quote:
A common type of synesthesia is "colored-hearing." People with this condition see specific colors in their "mind's eye" when they hear words, letters or numbers spoken out loud. The term "mind's eye" is used because although these people see the colors in front of them, the colors don't interfere with their normal vision. Another common type of synesthesia is "colored-touch." People with this condition see colors when they feel certain objects.

To learn more about synesthesia, Colin Blakemore's team at Oxford University recently studied an interesting subgroup of people with the condition?-people who say that they have been colored-hearing synesthetes all their life, even after becoming blinded by injury or disease to the retina. "We wondered whether they might be just imagining remembered colors rather than having genuine visual sensations, so long after losing their real sight," says Megan Steven, a graduate student at Oxford and the lead author of the study.

Six volunteers with colored-hearing synesthesia who had been blind at least 10 years participated in the study. They were asked to describe the colors they saw when hearing the names of each day of the week, month of the year, letter of the alphabet and/or number from 1-100 (counting by tens after the first 10 digits). Their responses were recorded. Two months after this initial screening, the volunteers were surprised with a second, identical test.

"What we found was an amazing correlation between the two testing days," says Steven. "If a subject said that A was pale green on the first testing day, they would say that the letter was a light or pale green on the surprise testing day two months later. This is strong evidence that they were experiencing a genuine phenomenon?-they actually appeared to be seeing colors in their mind's eye, even though they had been blind for at least 10 years." These findings suggest, she adds, that the visual areas of the brain can still remain active after blindness.

Two of the six volunteers also had a special form of colored-touch that Steven coined "colored-Braille," which caused them to see colors when they read Braille letters. The repeat test showed that their responses to the colors they "touched" as they read were also genuine. Since they learned Braille after they started to become blind, this implies that the connections in their brains leading to the color sensations were established through some kind of learning. Synesthesia runs in families and almost certainly depends on a genetic factor. However the particular form that it takes might depend on individual experience.

In a further experiment, the researchers tried to determine what was driving the synesthesia. For the blind people with colored hearing, the meaning of a word, rather than its sound alone, seems to be important. For example, when the word "March" was used in a sentence to mean a particular month of the year, one volunteer saw a "dark greeny blue" color. But when he heard the same word used as a verb ("The soldiers march across the bridge.") he did not see a color. Interestingly, when the same volunteer, who also has colored-Braille synesthesia, read the number 1, the musical note A, or the letter A in Braille?-all of which are represented by a single dot in the upper-left corner?-he saw the same color (white). His colored-Braille synesthesia appears to depend on the pattern of the dots, not the semantic representation.

In the next step of their research, Steven and her colleagues are using fMRI to investigate which areas of the brain in late-blind synesthetes are activated during colored-hearing and colored-Braille.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2006 01:28 pm
One thing which i don't believe anyone has brought up, but which has struck me is that MOAN is equating the inability to "see" her god with disabilities. It is not to be considered axiomatic that those who are not theists are by definition disabled.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2006 01:30 pm
Setanta,

Why are you putting meaning to something that was not there? I am not equating the inability to see God with disabilities. Oh brother! Do you ever look for the positive in anything? Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
aktorist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2006 01:30 pm
Quote:
I was speaking to those (i.e., Brandon, etc.) that continually ask for that evidence.


What you speak of then is pathetic. You think that any experience can be evidence and that you need to "experience" things for evidence to be there. While you can "experience" God, it is not evidence until you actually TEST it, but as for light, you can TEST it indirectly. Any person who is not dumb can see that.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2006 01:31 pm
Setanta

Correct....indeed "neurotheology" could indicate it is the other way round.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2006 01:32 pm
Ok, now you are getting a bit desparate I think. It was just an exercise to try to show how something might be hard to do for anyone. Why are you putting meaning to it that is not there?
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2006 01:41 pm
MA

All analogies/metaphors have positive, negative and neutral associations between two areas of discourse. It is certainly the case that "seeing" is a major metaphor for "knowing and understanding".
I use it myself in the quotation below. With such a familar metaphor it is impossible for you to rule on the applicability.
0 Replies
 
Questioner
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2006 01:42 pm
Momma Angel wrote:
Ok, now you are getting a bit desparate I think. It was just an exercise to try to show how something might be hard to do for anyone. Why are you putting meaning to it that is not there?


That's funny. Laughing
0 Replies
 
aktorist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2006 01:43 pm
Quote:
Ok, now you are getting a bit desparate I think. It was just an exercise to try to show how something might be hard to do for anyone. Why are you putting meaning to it that is not there?


Okay, so you're saying that there is absolutely no meaning to this.
Gotcha.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2006 01:43 pm
Hey Questioner,

I explained a few times in this thread what it was all about. Whether someone believes it or not, well, that's up to them.

I thought we pretty much wound things up here.

aktorist,

I explained what it was all about. Over and over again. I am getting such a headache!
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2006 01:47 pm
I think everything in our experience can be described as "neural__________".
0 Replies
 
aktorist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2006 01:49 pm
I have assembled three sets. Anyone could be smart enough to understand the intrinstic differences between them.

Set 1:
Color
Time
Position
Cartesian n-Space
Numbers
Direction
Truth
Spin
Mass
Sensation

Set 2:
Sound Wave
Atoms
Jupiter
France
Marianas trench
Andromeda Galaxy
Photons
Core of the Sun
Ozone layer
Air

Set 3:
Psychokinesis
Extra Terrestrials
Santa Claus
God
Loch Ness Monster
Tooth Fairy
UFOs
Ghosts
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/28/2026 at 01:13:28