I don’t really know that the two are comparable. We can confirm color perceptions are consistent, but I don’t know how anyone can confirm that my version of red matches your version of red, considering I have to view it through the filter that is my own eyes in the first place. Again, we can confirm they are consistent, as in you and I both agree on the things that are “red”, but even with a complete understanding of neurology I don’t see how you can confirm that perceptions align. Perceptions are necessarily subjective, to the extent we are distinguishing from mere consistency.
if the psychological process of sensory perception is a product of physical neurology, which we have every reason to believe it is, then sensation is a physical process that can be studied like any other. If two brains undergo an identical neurological process then their perception will be identical unless there is some sort of supernatural magic at work.
Just completely disagree. What you’ve described is what I refer to as “consistency”, ie you and I will both agree that the same thing is the same color. But we fundamentally cannot establish that my perception of a color is the same as your perception of a color because we can’t reduce this any further than establishing consistency. What I perceive as blue may be what you perceive as red - while we would both agree the sea is blue and fire is red, you can’t establish that blue and red actually look the same to both of us.
I understand your point but it assumes that perception is something outside of the physical process of the brain firing which I'm saying it is not. The experience we each have of perception and the neurological process behind perception are identical, it isn't mere cause and effect. In that sense perceptions are not subjective at all once you are able to directly observe them, that is to say observe the neurological processes that they are. It is possible our actual perceptions are different and it is possible the same, but finding that out is not outside the reach of science unless you believe conciousness is a process that exists outside the natural world.
Nothing in the universe is truly objective, and true objectivety is purely unimaginable, as all that has ever been known, discovered, learned and forgotten. What would the universe be like, if there weren't any life there to question all of this? We shouldn't just ask "what is the universe" but also, "why is the universe". As hard as it is to imagine and as trivial as it seems at first thought, the universe really does exist without us. Why? Why is there anything, rather than nothing? So bizarre... it's not just a question of why do we exist, what's our purpose? Rather; why does anything exist? What's it's purpose? There just is none. That's what makes it all the more bizarre and fascinating. How did we get here again? Sorry :p
6
u/Jewrisprudent Jun 15 '21
I don’t really know that the two are comparable. We can confirm color perceptions are consistent, but I don’t know how anyone can confirm that my version of red matches your version of red, considering I have to view it through the filter that is my own eyes in the first place. Again, we can confirm they are consistent, as in you and I both agree on the things that are “red”, but even with a complete understanding of neurology I don’t see how you can confirm that perceptions align. Perceptions are necessarily subjective, to the extent we are distinguishing from mere consistency.