[ExI] utah: RE: Frank Jackson's brilliant color scientist Mary

John Clark johnkclark at gmail.com
Thu Dec 26 16:39:50 UTC 2019

On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 4:29 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> *In other words, both (255, 0, 0) and "red" are not physically red.  You
> need to point to something and say: "THAT is red" to provide a physical
> definition to those abstract terms. *

If you're interested in subjectivity, or in gaining understanding of the
most basic fundamental nature of anything, not just consciousness, you've
got to forget about definitions because ultimately that always leads to
circularity, instead you've got to use examples. You point to a ripe tomato
and say "That is  (255, 0, 0), aka pure red". If I were to make a change in
that convention so that now the color of a ripe tomato was (0, 0, 255) then
your objective behavior would not change and subjectively you could not
even tell that a change had been made. So if objectively the inversion is
not important and subjectively it's nor important either then the inversion
was just not important.

John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20191226/07991d6a/attachment.htm>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list