How do we solve the problem of consiousness Veeky Forums?

>Falling just short of the fundamental wiring of the brain that encodes it, the scientific community shows a grasp of how sensory input is received and transmitted. What is "redness"? "Redness" is like "hotness" or "coldness", a material property of material interactions. Sourness, sweetness, savoriness is a property of certain molecules, sugars and amino acids arranged in a certain way, going into certain holes. The locking of particular molecules into particular parts of the spine produce similar "feelings" of the qualia by the use of opiates or approximate molecules. Hallucinogens produce reproducible, consistent psychedelic effects because they're - surprise surprise - molecular keys that fit into the right holes. It's self-evident. Let STEMfags do their jobs.

Why do fedoras think we're going to learn anything new from their le ebin science lesson, and that they still can't wrap their autism around the real question, which is how we can speak of a "redness" in the first place, and how one might go about precisely reducing the subjective qualities of "redness" to strictly mechanistic reaction

>The chemical reactions of the human brain are only an exterior, mechanistic function of our consciousness

So your memories, from which demonstrable conscious functions basically emerge, all exist on a separate plane and are only received by the physical structures of the brain like some kind of antennae? They're not fungible with the physical structure of the brain at all? Do tell me more, Socrates. But let me cut out your frontal lobe first.

Consciousness is not memory but awareness of memory.

How do you reduce the repulsive force of a magnet to a physical reaction? Or the properties of a photon? Gravity, even? Physicists with degrees are clearly still plugging away on it, but so far the preliminary answer is that there are really tiny particles that "carry" the force, and that's just how it werks

>We don't know.

Why are you so dismissive of the hard problem again?

Yes, we all share instinctual memory that exists in a transcendent state beyond the individual human consciousness that we all have an innate connection with. This instinctual memory is not simply lower ordered primal urges, but higher ordered knowledge of our consciousness as well. Destroying a persons brain does not destroy this shared knowledge of the human consciousness.

You understand then we'd have to explain how these "particles" emit subjectivity? How are you having such a hard time with this? Are you expecting some kind of sciency diagrams of particles and waves and arrows everywhere pointing out "redness", "blueness", "the smell of a rose" ...?

>and how one might go about precisely reducing the subjective qualities of "redness" to strictly mechanistic reaction
Anything that reflects or transmits light of a wavelength between two arbitrary points is called "red." That range of wavelengths triggers specific receptors only, which transmits signal pattern x instead of signal pattern y. Signal pattern x, in the sensory lobe connects to multiple other parts of the brain that all fire together.

Subjective "redness" is the firing of neurons all across the brain that occur whenever any one piece of the system triggers the rest of it. (Seeing a given wavelength triggers the system in one way, hearing the sounds "red" triggers the system in another way, thinking about the concept of RED triggers it another way, etc.) Because most of the system fires all together or at least in cascade, the subjective concept or a memory also causes sensory information.

Where is the hangup?

>How do we solve the problem of consiousness Veeky Forums?
By killing yourself :)

Why/how does it appear as "redness", the quality I see when I look at the color red? Jesus Christ.

There's no problem really. Consciousness, as in your consciousness is everything there is. It is the only thing you can have access to. It contains a model of a universe, including a model of a you, and a model of a brain. The real universe, you and your brain can never be shown to exist. That's very important. So yes there is a paradigm shift to be made, but the difference with physics is that everyone is by himself. There are no torshbearers like Einstein or Newton. The paradigm shift can only be made subjectively, one individual at a time. problem of consciousness is

When the sensory neurons fire in pattern x instead of Y, connected to the concept of RED and memories of seeing it.

Not only yes, I'd say it's unavoidable. We'll be considered barbaric primitives to the people of the future. Even the insurmountable philosophical dead-end of existentialism will most likely become outdated sooner than later.

So if a computer did something, and it creates a log for itself that it did something, would it be conscious? No, animals do that, basic electronic chips do that. Sensory organs and awareness of their awareness is necessary, which conceptually just takes a lot of biological computer parts stacked and woven into one another. Every animal is "conscious" to some degree as far as it can be reactive to its environment and learn from reactivity, but the "consciousness" (ie ability to demonstrate memory of qualia and advanced sensory-reaction-memory, or sensory-reaction-memory-memory...etc, meta-memory ad infinitum) is the most advanced in adult humans with well-developed brains.

I'm dismissive of it in this sense because I don't see why it must be a problem of philosophy (and humanities in general) rather than a problem of scientific effort. Was there, at one point, a "hard problem of agriculture"?

You know it's understood that color only exists in the way we understand it at a macroscopic level right? If you zoom in close enough to a particle color becomes meaningless, like driving into on a PC monitor and only seeing blue and red dots instead of an anime girl. One must imagine other, complex and subjective experiences are no different, although with chains of reaction bordering on the incomprehensible, even more than how inert metals can generate moving pictures on a PC when combined, processed, etc. It's "red" because of, basically, magnets. The magnet experts are still refining their analysis.

How do those neuron give me what exactly what I see when I see red, and why those firing pattern appear as redness, and what is intrinsically different about the firing patterns that give me blue, what mechanistically separates blue and red besides wavelengths

ayy marrone

So, there are specific neurons that trigger x amount of red on y amount of the visual plane of the eye?
Are you claiming that humans work exactly like computer screens despite the fact that computer screens were built FOR our subjective experience?

>So if a computer did something, and it creates a log for itself that it did something, would it be conscious? No, animals do that, basic electronic chips do that. Sensory organs and awareness of their awareness is necessary, which conceptually just takes a lot of biological computer parts stacked and woven into one another. Every animal is "conscious" to some degree as far as it can be reactive to its environment and learn from reactivity, but the "consciousness" (ie ability to demonstrate memory of qualia and advanced sensory-reaction-memory, or sensory-reaction-memory-memory...etc, meta-memory ad infinitum) is the most advanced in adult humans with well-developed brains.

Consciousness and matter. A dual-aspect monism. Awareness is a scale that becomes more "empirically manifest" (sensory-reaction, etc. like you said) the more complex the nervous system. Congrats, you just red-pilled yourself.

>I'm dismissive of it in this sense because I don't see why it must be a problem of philosophy (and humanities in general) rather than a problem of scientific effort. Was there, at one point, a "hard problem of agriculture"?

The hard of problem of -pretty much any x would obviously be a scientific effort, but the problem of how there is even something hear to speak about problems and x goes deeper than problems of strictly material phenomena.

>You know it's understood that color only exists in the way we understand it at a macroscopic level right?

How this scale is determined, why there is a "zooming out" and a "zooming in" on the facts of atomic interaction is the question. You still don't get it.

>iplying that modenr philosophers dont still look back throught all of philosophy right back to the start to rethink and establish their position.

>what mechanistically separates blue and red besides wavelengths
In addition to the wavelengths of the actual light, the actual sensory cells within the eye can modify the signals of each other depending on how they fire and what other cells they are connected to.
>why do they appear as redness/what is intrinsically different about the firing patterns that give me blue
As a child, you associate Red with apples and Blue with blueberries. The pattern of someone seeing Red would likely have the concept of an apple activated to a certain extent, whereas someone seeing Blue would have the concept of a blueberry activated to a certain extent, and those themselves are connected to things like shapes, which are created from line segments that do seem to correspond to individual neurons etc. It is a brain-wide cascade pattern, but it is self-consistent. If you're asking why the wires aren't switched, then if I had to hazard a guess it's because the identification of certain wavelengths or combinations is evolutionary important, and other systems would either be less efficient or were not possible for some other reason.

I still don't see why there has to be an additional substance above the energy-material plenum, in the sense of Descartes, to facilitate what seem to be reasonable though complex reactions producing qualia from fundamentally material forces. It begs the question of how the immaterial reacts with the material at all, their point of intersection and mechanism stumping Descartes just as much, when he pointed to the pineal as a kind of antennae for thought-waves, or in modern concept a router and modem for the internet to your brain's otherwise inert PC.
The fact that we continuously return to the ubiquitous computer metaphor probably says volumes here.

> how there is even something hear to speak about problems and x goes deeper than problems of strictly material phenomena.
That boils down to a "nothing from nothing leaves nothing", doesnt it?

No, through all this, you can't derive the exact feeling from firing patterns.

Let me rephrase the question: why would the firing patterns/cones that pick up the wavelength of blue and modify it accordingly, whatever, physiologically relax me as opposed to seeing red, or black? How do you reduce the subjective qualities of color to firing patterns? You can't say blue reminds me of the sea, or it reminds of the sky that's why it's relaxing, because those things are blue to begin with.

>So, there are specific neurons that trigger x amount of red on y amount of the visual plane of the eye?
Each cone cell has its location on the retina, and communicates its information to the somatosensory and visual cortexes. Shape information is broken down by individual cells, yes, but other parts of the brain are also involved in constructing the image far beyond what the eye actually sees. So it doesn't work like pixels, despite the eye having a resolution. Optical illusions wouldn't be illusions otherwise.

>Are you claiming that humans work exactly like computer screens despite the fact that computer screens were built FOR our subjective experience?
While this isn't my claim, I'm not sure why humans creating devices that interface with their needs and organs would be a controversial idea.

Who said another substance? Dual-aspect. Monism. One thing, with two different simultaneous properties. Yin (Mind) and Yang (Matter)

Would that make any movement, or form of energy, a "yin" aspect? Reducing to those forms creates the prospect of something like a marathon runner creating a conundrum comparable to the "consciousness" problem. When his legs move in a certain way, intersecting with the track, he is propelled forward and runs in a way that is distinct from when he stands still or lies down. When his legs stop, the running stops. Where does the "running" go? Would you say the "running" is a manifestation of yin that is no longer active, or merely interactions between the yang of his CNS, muscles, legs, air resistance, ground etc that physically permit it? That's my perspective on the concept of "mind" and brain, it's an emergent property (running, or speed) of the brain (the legs).

Looking at a brain's neurons firing is a certain representation of the brain's function. It is a different way of looking at it.
This view of the brain is simply a mediated external view of it.
In parallel to you watching your brain functioning in an MRI machine you also experience it working in yourself..
Much like you can watch two video feeds from different angels of the same room.
Or a video feed and a sound feed.
Of course when you cut a piece of a brain your mental experience also changes.
Likewise, when you think about something or experience something new it will be visible in the MRI machine.

>You can't say blue reminds me of the sea, or it reminds of the sky that's why it's relaxing, because those things are blue to begin with.
Sure I can, because it's true. If you find blue relaxing, it is likely because you have been in a situation that was relaxing and had a lot of blue, and the two were associated. If you relax on the beach, for example, the memory of said relaxation is associated with the sensory information that occured concurrently. So, for example, the sound of the waves (certain pattern of firing from the ears), the smell of the salt (certain pattern of firing from the nose) and the sight of the ocean (certain pattern of firing from the eyes) are all transmitted to the sensory cortex. Neurons that fire together often or very extremely will tend to fire together in the future, because they become attuned to each other. This is most extreme in childhood as connections themselves are physically modified (which is why childhood memories tend to be the ones that produce this effect most) but this can also occur through modification of the actual junction between connections.

>How do we solve the problem of consiousness Veeky Forums?
I don't see any problem.

But the question is why i have any experience at all. Why is there a RED or a BLUE at all.
why do you experience a color the way you experience it. Dont tell me how my body works looking at a micsroscope, i am not asking how my eye is consructed.
I am asking you about your experience when you look at an apple. Why do you experience it as you do.
A red is also a certain wavelength as measured through a TOOL. the tool measures certain things according to certain standards and gives an output. wavelength is a mathematical physical construct. I am asking you why you experience a blue color as you do, not as an output of a an external device.

>the autism of STEM...

>Dont tell me how my body works looking at a micsroscope
That has historically been an extremely useful way of telling you how your body works.

>I am asking you why you experience a blue color as you do
Because the output of the tool connects to the visual field/working memory, along with all the other associations.

You are still describing how the body works looking at it through your senses(augmented with devices). I am asking you about your personal experience.
Forget scientific devices and how they translate the world to your senses. The question is about how you experience things from withn yourself.
In case of a computer screen conencted to a computer you would ask now how the computer produces color on the screen based on its hardware but how does the computer, from inside itself experience this generation that appears on the screen.

The human consciousness is inherently of the realm of the irrational. It cannot be dissected and explained in terms of material, mechanistic functions or quantified in terms of empiricism. Any attempts to define the human consciousness in this way is inherently of a biological reductionist view and will fail in it's efforts.

It's only be useful for learning about exterior, physical functions. It doesn't reveal as much insight as you think it does.

And we cant answer it about a computer because we cant answer it about ourselves.
We dont know if a computer "experiences" anything because we dont understand mental experiencing.

"Running" is yin, the fact of awareness, the qualitative dimension into which the workings of the legs, the yang element (and all the neural patterns that correspond to different structures of cognition, as well as external influence) are translated. How strong your legs is your CNS complexity, capacity of movement is how "dim", or not, the awareness of that cognition is.

No, that's silly, because what would be relaxing me sitting by the beach would be precisely the blueness of the sea and sky. The sight of the ocean HAS the property of blueness, the elusive feeling we are trying to explain.

Or else you're telling me I could be just as relaxed by a black ocean under a red sky. Or that I should also associate blackness with relaxation, because the sky is black at night, and the sky is relaxing right? The colors can't be arbitrary.

The only place this subjective apprehension CAN happen is in consciousness, which is exactly what I'm saying: all this this stuff you're talking about cannot be reducible to just that, it must give rise to undeniable and otherwise inexplicable subjective component

The brain isn't separated into neat categories like hardware and software like a computer is. That much should be obvious by the fact that experiences and memories (software) cam actually modify physical connections (hardware) through repeated firing. (And before you try it, there is nothing immaterial about that either, post-synaptic modification is not mystical.) I have explained it.

>It's only be useful for learning about exterior, physical functions. It doesn't reveal as much insight as you think it does.
Examples?

>Examples?

One cannot predict the movements of the inhabitants of city based on the laws of motion alone. Ergo, consciousness has its own ruleset

>because what would be relaxing me sitting by the beach would be precisely the blueness of the sea and sky
No, the relaxing part comes from the cultural associations of "going to the beach" as a time to not worry about things and as an accepted time to simply enjoy yourself, along with the distance from any stressful triggers. If humans were to colonize an alien planet where all the beach waters were yellow but everything else was equal, they would likely be just as relaxed (assuming there is nothing in our collective evolutionary history that predisposed us to associate yellow with danger.) If you were to personally visit this alien planet you would likely not be as relaxed, because your experiences are with a blue ocean and you are not a child anymore (though plasticity does extend into adulthood, the effects are not as dramatic. )

You are either trolling or actually mentally challanged my friend.
Your experience is unique of its kind. You cannot compare it to any other internal mental experiecne because you only have your internal experience of things.
You cant see how others experience themselves internally through a machine. That only shows you how it looks from the outside.
You can look at a face of someone contorting as he speaks but you do not know how it feels to him as he is controrting his face.

Only in your persona case can you both look at a mirror and know how controting your face feels from within yourself.
So the question is what is this external feeling and why is it the way it is.
Watching another's face controting(watching a brain through an MRI machine) will not tell you how the person experiences it.

Depends on what you define as the laws of motion. We currently don't have as fine tune a handle on the motion of every single particle in the brain that would facilitate such an analysis. The computing power to model it, even if we did have a perfect map, might never exist. But motion and chemistry together might theoretically explain such movements.

>Your experience is unique of its kind
If you think of 'our time' as relative to the big bang and assuming the big bang was not a one off thing this is wrong.

>You cant see how others experience themselves internally through a machine. That only shows you how it looks from the outside.
If the machine is measuring the internal workings, the I am seeing how the internal workings look from the outside. This is sufficient to draw a number of reasonable conclusions, especially when combined with experiment.

>No, the relaxing part comes from the cultural associations of "going to the beach" as a time to not worry about things and as an accepted time to simply enjoy yourself, along with the distance from any stressful triggers.

Haha, no, because then who was the first to be relaxed at a beach to start this "cultural trend" of feeling relaxed at the beach? Come on m8.

But your second argument is better, that what we find relaxing or repugnant is re-writable and depends on our environments in childhood, but as you can't explain what is the exact connect between the relaxing qualities of blue to earth-born humans and their peculiarly conditioned physiology, so can't you explain what evokes relaxation for the colonists and their unique physiology.

Regardless of what color evokes which feelings, the fact is the physical description of consciousness can't even begin to set understand the mechanism by which a color CAN evoke a certain feeling and HOW it does. It's simply not reducible to a quantitative description.

>actually thinking there's a need to posit mind-stuff as an ontological category

Fucking lol.

>Haha, no, because then who was the first to be relaxed at a beach to start this "cultural trend" of feeling relaxed at the beach? Come on m8.
Probably depends individually on the culture. A culture that makes their living on the beach working constantly probably doesn't have the same association with relaxation as a culture that lives more inland, where the only people who could travel to a beach where those with leisure time and would do so for some reason, perhaps privacy. But these aren't set in stone, cultures from one type can influence cultures from another, etc.

>but as you can't explain what is the exact connect between the relaxing qualities of blue to earth-born humans
I think I have actually explained this sufficiently.
>so can't you explain what evokes relaxation for the colonists and their unique physiology.
If your long-lost twin were to be raised on the alien colony, and assuming you find blue beaches relaxing, the twin would likely find yellow beaches relaxing. (Accounting for the differences in identical twins, assuming the alien colony has a similar beach culture, etc.) It's not a question of physiology, since anatomically modern humans haven't changed that much in thousands of years.

>mechanism by which a color CAN evoke a certain feeling and HOW it does.
The neurons associated with a feeling fire at the same time as a color, due to the environment triggering both. Then, outside the environment, the feeling is triggered by the color, because both neural patterns have attuned to each other through plasticity/synaptic modification.

>Probably depends individually on the culture. A culture that makes their living on the beach working constantly probably doesn't have the same association with relaxation as a culture that lives more inland, where the only people who could travel to a beach where those with leisure time and would do so for some reason, perhaps privacy. But these aren't set in stone, cultures from one type can influence cultures from another, etc.

No, how did the first person find beaches relaxing if he needed to culturally conditioned to find beaches relaxing, instead, of you know, the absurdly trivial proposition that maybe beaches are just relaxing by themselves? I can't believe I have to argue this.

>I think I have actually explained this sufficiently.

Oh man. No. No, you have not. The whole reason why we're talking about beaches and blueness is because you haven't explained what it is about JUST the mechanistic action-reaction that gives us blue that also makes it relaxing, by virtue of it irreducibly being blue.

>The neurons associated with a feeling fire at the same time as a color, due to the environment triggering both. Then, outside the environment, the feeling is triggered by the color, because both neural patterns have attuned to each other through plasticity/synaptic modification.

What? So when I see something scary, the neurons for "fear" fire before I feel fear?

Or maybe it's just because I subjectively perceive something that is frightening, that I then feel fear (especially if it's something like a creepy image on the internet and not something more primal like running into a tiger)? I mean come on man. So you're literally telling me the wavelengths that correspond to blue physiologically relax me? Oi.

>No, how did the first person find beaches relaxing if he needed to culturally conditioned to find beaches relaxing, instead, of you know, the absurdly trivial proposition that maybe beaches are just relaxing by themselves? I can't believe I have to argue this.
Again, there was likely not one individual, but multiple, and each likely had a different reason. If a culture lived on an island with dangerous predators that patrolled beaches exclusively, they would not find beaches relaxing. But a culture who did not work there and did not encounter dangers were to happen upon a private space such as a beach, then they would find it relaxing. Beaches are not inherently relaxing, but they have qualities that can make them suitable for someone to have a relaxing experience. Blueness is not one of those qualities, safety and separations from stressors is.

>what it is about JUST the mechanistic action-reaction that gives us blue that also makes it relaxing
Blue is not inherently relaxing. It is associated with relaxation through its co-occurrence with relaxing experiences.

>What? So when I see something scary, the neurons for "fear" fire before I feel fear?
I'm not sure if this exact question has been answered, but for an example of electrical activity of neurons preceeding concious experience,
nature.com/news/2008/080411/full/news.2008.751.html
But you may have had an experience closer to home, where you have reacted to something fearful on instinct before you actually realized how afraid you were.

>So when I see something scary, the neurons for "fear" fire before I feel fear?
Yes. Do you have any idea how the adrenal glands work?
> So you're literally telling me the wavelengths that correspond to blue physiologically relax me?
seattletimes.com/nation-world/blue-streetlights-believed-to-prevent-suicides-street-crime/

>So you're literally telling me the wavelengths that correspond to blue physiologically relax me?
No, the wavelengths that trigger signal for blue triggers the concept of blue triggers the memory of blue you saw at the beach triggers the feeling of being relaxed, through physiological modifications. Again, neurons that tend to fire together will trigger each other in other contexts.

Jesus, I'm off today. Sorry, this is me samefagging because I forgot to add the last part. It's pretty obvious but I figured I should mention it before someone accuses me of trying to hide it.

I meant And now Holy shit, that's a sign. Sorry.

>Again, there was likely not one individual, but multiple, and each likely had a different reason. If a culture lived on an island with dangerous predators that patrolled beaches exclusively, they would not find beaches relaxing. But a culture who did not work there and did not encounter dangers were to happen upon a private space such as a beach, then they would find it relaxing. Beaches are not inherently relaxing, but they have qualities that can make them suitable for someone to have a relaxing experience. Blueness is not one of those qualities, safety and separations from stressors is.

No, they probably would have found the beaches relaxing when they could take a breather.

Are you really telling me what one finds relaxing in the color blue is completely arbitrary, and is in no way associated with the precise sensation of the color blue itself? Are you telling me blue isn't at least conducive to being associated with relaxation and calm? You're saying a beach could be blood-red and we would have the same reaction to it if we were raised to believe that's the only color beaches could be, but even if we grant that, you need to go poking in one of these hypothetical's people's heads and tell me how, exactly, in strictly mechanistic criteria, a) the objectively same wavelength can evoke such different feelings and b) prove that these individuals would feel as relaxed by blue water vs. red, or black, or whatever.

And this isn't even mentioning the #1 issue in the first place: which is how we can speak of a qualitative level about what you're telling me is actually JUST physical behavior, instead of conceding the qualitative and quantitative are inherent to each other.

A fight-or-flight response is not the subjective sensation of fear. It doesn't explain why I would find something a photo of something creepy frightening without resorting to what is essentially a subjective fear response to what does not occur in nature. Oh, and you can't break it down to hurr big teeth = tigers, etc. because by themselves those can be found everywhere

>seattletimes.com/nation-world/blue-streetlights-believed-to-prevent-suicides-street-crime/

you're telling me all of these people just happen to have a relaxing memory strongly associated with blue, or maybe you're just confirming my point that blue is intrinsically relaxing on its own to human physiology, and hence, subjectivity?

so what changes when it's night time? just the color of my surroundings right? so beaches are relaxing, a beach is still there at night, so why don't I find the color black as relaxing as blue? color doesn't matter right? why do people find the darkness of a star-filled night sky relaxing? maybe because these all have different subjective qualities despite the same wavelengths being processed? you still haven't answered this question

>No, they probably would have found the beaches relaxing when they could take a breather.
Who is "they"? The people who had leisure time to go to a beach in the first place? If blue was the only determinant, why go to the beach at all? Why not simply stare at the sky (while working, because lying in a field in staring at the sky again implies a time of leisure separate from the color itself.)

>Are you telling me blue isn't at least conducive to being associated with relaxation and calm? You're saying a beach could be blood-red
The reason I picked a yellow beach and not a red beach is because red has a specific evolutionary history with humanity due to blood and fire. Those who treated red with caution and alert were more likely to survive than those who did not. But this is not because of red itself, any more than a mobile segmented tube is inherently scary. It's scary because of an evolutionary history with snakes. However, in a world with red skies and beaches and blue fire being the most commonly encountered version, these would likely be switched. Such a thing could be done with twin studies and forcing one to wear special eye equipment for their entire lives , but it would be an incredibly cruel and unethical experiment. The best we can do is study the colorblind. I have provided the mechanism for colors producing emotions, I don't understand why you keep on saying I haven't. Neurons that fire together many times tend to trigger each other in the future. It happens through synaltic pruning in children and synaptic modification in adults.

>Who is "they"? The people who had leisure time to go to a beach in the first place? If blue was the only determinant, why go to the beach at all? Why not simply stare at the sky (while working, because lying in a field in staring at the sky again implies a time of leisure separate from the color itself.)

Blueness contributes to and is a major component of the "total relaxation" provided by a beach. Even if plants were orange and the sea was black, a colonist's association of these colors with certain qualities would feel as natural to them as blue etc. feels to us.

So you have yet to explain how firing patterns and the processing of objectively the same wavelength can cause different physiological responses if there wasn't some qualitative portion of experience that was having a subsequent effect back on the body.

Even if you can prove the response to colors can be "rewritten" (what's being rewritten?), even if our color preferences are just subjective expressions of arcane neurological fact, that STILL doesn't explain how and why orange, red, blue, green, literally all the content of our experience, appears the way it does, and why there is even an appearance in the first place. Why should there be anything experiencing these colors instead of our neurology just going through the motions.

>, a colonist's association of these colors with certain qualities would feel as natural to them as blue etc. feels to us.
Exactly, assuming an equivalent evolutionary history based around their planet's colors. Thus, it is not the color itself that causes the feeling, rather, it is the association with the experience/feeling during the experience.

>So you have yet to explain how firing patterns and the processing of objectively the same wavelength can cause different physiological responses
For the sake of clarity, we have only considered a relaxing "blue" memory, combined with an ideal clinical presentation of blue. In the real world, people have many memories and the presentation doesn't occur cleanly, but alongside many other stimuli. When a person sees blue, this can be in multiple contexts, and those signals also have their own activation pathways. Those also affect which memories are "triggered" (all associated with the color blue and are at least a little activated, which ones actually go to working memory depends on the sum of the forces activating and inhibiting them.) So someone who went to the beach as a child and really enjoyed it or went often seeing blue in a quiet environment or with calm ambient noise has both a different strength of association with relaxation and blue but also a different set of forces acting upon them compared to someone who never really went to the beach but constantly sees a guy in a blue pickup truck cut them off on a highway. Even the first person with the strong blue-relax association could encounter the second scenario and not be relaxed.

>Even if you can prove the response to colors can be "rewritten" (what's being rewritten?
Which set of neurons tend to fire with which other set of neurons.

>Why should there be anything experiencing these colors instead of our neurology just going through the motions.
Concious experience appears to be adaptive/emergent property of abstract reasoning/metacognition etc.