[ExI] Mental Phenomena
ben at zaiboc.net
Fri Jan 31 19:35:00 UTC 2020
Brent Allsop wrote:
>One of the important fundamentals is that knowledge of reality is
different than reality. Knowledge of reality is simplified and optimized
so we can survive more efficiently. It only focuses on and models what
is important to us. Qualia blindness is simply having a model of
reality that does not include qualia. If there is only one word being
used for all things red, that is qualia blind language.
Ah, so you're just talking about the models of the world we create in
our heads being a different thing to the 'real' world outside. I suppose
there must be people who don't think about that, but they will be the
people who aren't interested in such things. Surely everyone who has any
interest in how our minds work realises this?
You're saying that it's important to use language that distinguishes
between 'reality' (the world outside our heads) and our internal models
of it. OK, fair enough, so I'm not qualia-blind after all, and never
have been, since I started thinking about such things, a long time ago.
I probably was before that.
>All experimentalists, today, only use one word for all things red. If
they detect any physical differences in the brains of people percieving
red, they "correct" for this only thinking of all of it as red.
Well, I can't speak for "all experimentalists, today", but I doubt if
they fail to understand the difference between the red light entering
the eye, and the internal representation of whatever red thing is seen,
including the abstract mental category 'redness'. In fact, I can't see
how they could fail to. Are you sure you understand /them/? I don't
really see how anyone who studies the brain can really think of the
representations of sensory information as being /the same thing/ as the
external signals that drives them. That would imply they think there is
red light inside the brain, everytime that brain thinks about red light.
I'm certain nobody seriously thinks that.
>And that is the only reason, today, nobody can tell is the colour of
I don't follow that. What do you mean by "nobody can tell the colour of
>And that is the only reason people think there is a hard mind body problem
Personally, I never thought the 'hard problem of consciousness' made any
sense, if that's what you're referring to. But what has it got to do
with what you're talking about?
OK, tell you what, never mind.
I've just read your exchanges with Stathis, and you seem to be telling
him different things to what you're telling me.
Does he understand, as you told me, that all this is a
thought-experiment in a totally unrealistic, simplified made-up world?
Because, you know, that's important! I thought, all this time, you were
talking about one aspect of the real world, and when you said it's not,
it made more sense. A bit more sense.
But it seems clear that you still think there is such a 'thing in
itself' as redness, even though you seem to accept that redness is a
representation in the mind of something seen by the eyes. You seem
incapable of understanding that this representation can be different in
different minds and at different times, but still have the same meaning
I can experience redness, but there is no such 'thing' as redness.
In other words, redness is an experience, a process, not a thing in its
own right, independent of the brain that creates it.
I think this is where we differ most. You think that 'redness' is a
thing that has an existence independent of a mind. Am I right?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat