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

[William Flynn Wallace]

I think it's only circular if there is only one example.  bill w

On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 10:43 AM John Clark via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20191226/ad47a833/attachment.htm>