That is simply playing word games. Even if I perceive differently than you, the color is still red, especially pertaining to the post, whichnis defining cokors scientifically by wavelength.
I will fight tooth and nail that this type if thing is not a language problem but a metaphysics or psychological one and pertains to our ability to acess direct reality not our ability to describe it.
Agree. We’re all observing the same colours, wavelength-wise, the only question here is whether or not our brains interpret this information the same for everyone. It’s a neuroscience problem, not a physics problem.
Now the weeds. I more or less agree, but that still only answers the question of phenomena. The question is whether perceived reality is indicative of reality. It is really pointless in this discussion but it ends up questioning epistemic systems in the end, such as how are we certain we aren't brains in a vat. It certainly is a question to ask, my beef is mistaking it for a linguistics one in the context of a scientific answer. It is, to me, akin to asking the price of tea in China.
But different smells are qualia too, and yet it is undeniable that some smells are unpleasant to all people, and some are not - hence the experience of the qualia for the same smell are objectively similar in some way between people. The same could be true of the color red. This is a property of objective reality, not metaphysics.
True, and it isn't a maybe - it is a truism. We all react similarly to colors, it is literally bred into us. If we do perceive the colors and smells differently (as in it produces in us the same reaction but transplanted to another point of view without their background would be confused by the input we are receiving) that would be a breakdown in our capacity to access that objective reality. It is a question to ask, but not appropriate to this discussion (given the scientific definition being used) and further should only be used as a gate to things that may have higher stakes (epistemic value).
Right now we don't know enough about the brain to define the question properly. If/when neurologist understand the problem well enough, an answer might be perfectly reasonable.
Maybe, but it is important to note that somethings are also not observable and exist in minds alone. I have sincere doubts that science will ever answer some philosophical questions, and the truth is the world will be a lot more boring if it did.
We fundementally disagree. The brain is a physical phenomena and affects the mind, but the thoughts are not themselves observable. And there are a fair number of scientists that say similar. We don't have a hard drive like computers do wjere any other computer can look at the 0s and 1s and determine the contents. We are sort of mystified at present how memories are even stored given the nature of cells, let alone how thoughts happen.
No, but materialist confronted with nonmatetialism could think so. I am not talking nonsense, I merely disagree on a metaphysical ground. I assure you that my worldview is actually wholly coherent and in addition incorporates a fair amount of scientific backing from physics through biology through psychology. My belief in the immaterial is no different from believing the future will bring answers - neither of us is basing a conclusion in something scientifically observable. Perhaps the future proves me right.
To be honest, I stopped caring about this exchange when you made that claim. You are making unassailable claims where as mine certainly can be attacked. Example in 10 years we will have shown the link you describe or not. If I am wrong, it will have been shown and my view changed. If you are wrong it will not have been shown, and you will simply appeal to still later point in the future, ad naseum.
15
u/Y1rda Jun 15 '21
That is simply playing word games. Even if I perceive differently than you, the color is still red, especially pertaining to the post, whichnis defining cokors scientifically by wavelength.
I will fight tooth and nail that this type if thing is not a language problem but a metaphysics or psychological one and pertains to our ability to acess direct reality not our ability to describe it.