Page 1 of 1

The Colour of Consciousness

Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 2:10 am
by GreatandWiseTrixie
It is sad in human circles than when someone is sad they are blue. Why is this?

Doesn't make sense really. It doesn't make "sense" but perhaps a seventh sense.
Blue is a feeling. Color is a feeling.

Emotions are colors. My hypothesis is that human emotions are actually colors. If the consciousness wavelength could be summed up and averaged, it would equal the wavelength of whatever color. The emotional colors would be part of consciousness itself. Precisely, emotions themselves are defined by the wavelengths of consciousness.

Synthesia is like seeing the inner machinations of the machine itself.

Re: The Colour of Consciousness

Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2015 5:48 pm
by hammock
GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:It is sad in human circles than when someone is sad they are blue. Why is this? Doesn't make sense really. It doesn't make "sense" but perhaps a seventh sense. Blue is a feeling. Color is a feeling. Emotions are colors. My hypothesis is that human emotions are actually colors. If the consciousness wavelength could be summed up and averaged, it would equal the wavelength of whatever color. The emotional colors would be part of consciousness itself. Precisely, emotions themselves are defined by the wavelengths of consciousness. Synthesia is like seeing the inner machinations of the machine itself.
Some contend that we're trapped within the functional structures of our bodies and their environmental conditioning, that we're always using one of those resulting products as an analogy or even an explanatory model for another. Thus colors, etc, used as similes for emotions in this wide and variegated loop of somatic circularity. The epistemological pessimism of this particular strain of embodied cognition seems to vaguely echo that of Hume and Kant, but it's ironically grounded in the very rejection of reason, mathematics, etc, as being objective or independent or prior to body mechanics.
George Lakoff wrote:Perhaps the most sobering result is the most fundamental. We are neural beings. Our brains take their input from the rest of out bodies. What our bodies are like and how they function in the world thus structures the very concepts we can use to think. We cannot think just anything - only what our embodied brains permit. Metaphor appears to be a neural mechanism that allows us to adapt the neural systems used in sensory-motor activity to create forms of abstract reason. If this is correct, as it seems to be, our sensory-motor systems thus limit the abstract reasoning that we can perform. Anything we can think or understand is shaped by, made possible by, and limited by our bodies, brains, and our embodied interactions in the world. This is what we have to theorize with. Is it adequate to understand the world scientifically? There is reason to think that our embodied conceptual resources may not be adequate to all the tasks of science. We take case studies from physics and discuss them in our sections on Time and Causation. General relativity is a good example. [PHILOSOPHY IN THE FLESH: A Talk with George Lakoff]

Re: The Colour of Consciousness

Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2015 5:54 pm
by GreatandWiseTrixie
Not entirely true. Thought most if not all of our thoughts are part of our brain, there is consciousness itself which is seperate.

While I see that smiling itself is not happiness, and much happiness is culturally defined, there is more to this story.