Not odd at all. I define the right as a "Tribalistic fealty to power". A spiritual hierarchy of Immigrants < Unbelievers < Believers < Wealthy Believers < Priests & Anointed Politicians < J-Man & G-Man holds appeal for those with this kind of disposition.It is odd that Christians tend be on the right, while those with no god to care for them, tend to be on the left. — Athena
By "not really phenomenal qualities", you seem to mean that they are not qualities of the world. I think most here would agree, they are contrivances of our minds. But nonetheless they are phenomenal in the sense of phenomenalism, and in this sense they are real. They are the elementals of our inner lives.So we all have blue experiences but they aren't really phenomenal qualities, no matter how much we like to say they are. — Graeme M
But my "phenomenal aspect of red" is exactly that which we could say is your phenomenal aspect of blue.There isn't anything that is an experience of red such that we could say it is your blue. It's meaningless... the phenomenal aspect of red... — Graeme M
So if "that's it", and a robot can sort red and blue cards as well as you, must the robot have the same experience?As long as we discriminate, that's it. — Graeme M
Why do you believe this? Why wouldn't your memories of previous phenomenal experience remain intact?If today the phenomenal aspect has a particular quality, then we'd recall all previous examples as being the same — Graeme M
You are equating two things with a verbal equals sign that are entirely separate : "experience of the world", and "concept used to describe your experience". The fact that this distinction seems to elude you makes me suspect that you are, in fact, a p-zombie.Of course you would experience the world as "blue", that is, you'd have a concept of the colour blue that you could use to describe your experience of this world. — Graeme M
Of course not. I'm just an ape pressing buttons which somehow show you symbols representing grunts which I would grunt at you if you were here. Anything can symbolically represent anything else, nothing better than language. But how on earth, given this very crude system, am I supposed to communicate the actual*content* of blue?? All I can do is symbolically represent it. You are asking way too much of abstracted grunts.Can you tell me anything about blue that doesn't depend on using a blue object to describe it? — Graeme M
What IS the phenomenal experience of blue? I suspect nothing at all, beyond the distinctions it tokens. — Graeme M
If you were to plop me, a creature evolved in this colorful world, into that one, I would no doubt experience everything as blue. Perhaps that would fade over years. Natives of that world would have no experience nor concept of color, and would be baffled when I tried to communicate this chromatic monotony to them.Let me offer a thought experiment. — Graeme M
That seeming not-required is part of the mystery!Colour as some ineffable deeply personal quality isn't required. — Graeme M
You seem to have mistaken Occam's Razor for something authoritative. :chin: It's just a rule of thumb, a way of guessing when we can think of no better way to proceed with our reasoning.
And it asks: how should we deal with such speculations, logically? — Pattern-chaser
You misunderstand me. The smell of vanilla is the qualia, which is a symbol. It signifies the airborne vanilla molecules giving rise to the odor. We have no access to the reality, only to the symbols representing it: qualia.The smell of vanilla is the quale of smelling vanilla, not some separate thing indicated by the quale. — Dfpolis
(1) They certainly are. The vanillin molecule has nothing to do with the vanilla smell. The smell is purely symbolic, it points to the molecule.(1) qualia are not symbols, (2) qualia are not conventional and (3) we have no idea if they are shared or not — "Dfpolis
Why is a religion so good at commanding people to behave a certain way — Posty McPostface
We either suppose that the intrinsic nature of fundamental particles involves experience or we suppose that they have some entirely unknown intrinsic nature. — Philip Goff
so like if you enjoy the object 30% AND the object enjoys you back 40% - you have 70% beauty ? — Benjamin Dovano
A realm of objects in eternal inertial motion is already as rock-bottom unchanging as you are going to get.
Time does not have a speed.
Speed is a measure of distance traveled in an amount of time.
It does not make any sense to say time has a speed.
You introduce a problem, how can a thing which is static be converted into an abstraction which is dynamic?
Yes... and if one is foolishly brazen enough to issue grand pronouncements on the nature of time, he should at least mention relativity!Er ... no ... ever heard of relativity?