If I see one more person on this board use the word qualia I'm going to lose it
qualia
>>16146562
what is that?
>>16146547>>16146562>>16146590Samefag
>>16146600Yeah anon I totally waited and came back 20 minutes later to reply to my own thread
>>16146601Did doing so make you happy?
>>16146603>>16146601>>16146600Samefag
>>16146547I would have to agree that qualia is a very cringe word and is also gay. Another word I do not like is epistemology. Both words are unpleasant. If I was going to host a gay sex party for men with ass fisting and raping of the ass by large African men, then we would be talking about qualia and epistemology during the gay sex to the ass
I'm qualian. I believe qualia exists. Qualism.
qualidiots everywhere
>>16146640It's Qual not Qualia. It's a representation of a pure form of quality.
>>16146641Sometimes you fart, but continue to fart longer than you know and this deceives you. Make sure all of the fart is out, leave no fart trapped in
>>16146547LOL FAG!
>>16146643I have been farting non stop for hours. It feels like I tore my asshole a little bit
>>16146684Keep fartin
But what if my red looks like your blue?
>>16146696It wouldn't work. The sky needs to be the same blue otherwise you won't receive the simulation properly. No such thing as a red sky.
>>16146696you'd still see magenta as magenta
>>16146696why would it?our eyes and brains work the same way
>>16146798If all brains work the same then why is there a difference of at least 50 IQ points between us?
>>16146834what differs is higher level use for same hardware because reasons. like a faster or a slower car. they both cars, use wheel, push pedals for acceleration/brake. some subsystems from one car may be more performant for specific use but similar experience overall, they are cars with wheels.
>>16146834kekand you think you are smart for thinking that toothere is literally no reason for "my red looks like your blue" to happenwe have the same cone cells that detect the same light and same nerves that send the same signals to the same brain cells
>>16146846Agreed. They did tests once where they flipped people’s vision upside down with some glasses. After a while people reported seeing everything the right way up, so their brain was correcting their vision to the “cardinal” representation. I imagine the same thing happening if colors were switched.
>>16148089that's weird. what if it doesn't come back when you take them off?
>>16146846Immediate problem? Too literal. One set of brain cells is not the same as another set. In general, synesthesia blocks your path. Others swear linguistics affects qualia resolution. Consider hallucinogens, for example, where tie dye patterns strobe the qualia stream. Until you invoke a subjective definition of qualia that isn't reliant on reference pointers, the conclusion is moot. As a matter of more concern, the swapping of colors may not come close to describing qualia distinctions. Our rainbows may not appear anything alike at all and suggesting a similarity may pose a grave problem for scientific materialism. Evolutionary pressure indicates that this perception of light would maximize contrast or other feature that improves survival, however the dance to regulate such a feature is far too advance of a property after applying entropy. Consider various facial structures influenced merely by diet over a lifetime. The type of tuning in the mind is significantly quicker and would spawn significant variation. Convergence is unlikely.
>>16148146>synesthesiastopped reading here. that's not normal functioning of a human brain
>>16148130>what if it doesn't come back when you take them off?Then your brain would be misrepresenting your perception. The point is that the concept of qualia is trying to separate subjective experience from physical reality, which are actually inextricably linked because they are different ways of talking about the same thing.
>>16148153NTA but are you completely retarded? Whether or not both brains are "normally functioning" has no bearing on the question of "what if my red looks like your blue?" You're also entirely missing the point of why synesthesia is relevant. Even discounting that some form of mild synesthesia is experienced by up to 1 in 4 people at some point in their lifetime, the existence of synesthesia itself calls into question the causal relationship between perception (i.e., raw signal detection) and qualitative experience of said signal as a conscious agent.
>>16148184no it doesn't, it's just something which doesn't work as it should. if your pc monitor's colors would start changing based on the audio from PC you'd get over the novelty pretty fast, and realize there's a point to color permanence. a functional one.just because you can build some retarded shit doesn't mean it's worthy of "functional".>Even discounting that some form of mild synesthesia is experienced by up to 1 in 4 people at some point in their lifetimeeverybody has medical problems in their lifetime, some headache, some non-optimal state.a car with a broken engine is not worth pondering over. it's a broken car, doesn't work as it should.the confusion here comes from purpose. a car is built to a purpose, so are we built for a purpose (in the evolutionary sense, the environment shaped us, for a "purpose"). if that purpose is impeded by your problem, you are broken, technically.
>>16148189Ah, so you are completely retarded. Got it. Enjoy the rest of your life fampai.
>>16148195I am retarded for engaging with you because it's pretty clear you're on that "can't prove it so I'm right" faggot ride.
>>16148200I agree with him that you're retarded in so many ways that even the thought of addressing just one of your fallacies is tiring. For example:>so are we built for a purposeYou first need consciousness to (re)cognize what is perceived as purposeful which leads to a circular mess that is overwhelmingly tiring. Argument from evolution theory fails exactly because it's geared to survive and reproduce meaning that any symbolic representation that helps replication is good enough meaning that your perception is more likely to be a videogamification of reality rather than reality itself.So tiring this is...
>>16148209>you need consciousness for reasonyes consciousness can ponder reality and the state of things. but our probing of reality is limited, we don't get full access to it. different representation for reality does exist for Earth lifehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gvg242U2YfQperception is directly tied to the matter arrangement of our form. matter in certain way will result in same perception. that's why your phone works. matter structures have the same function. your brain and thus perception must be deeply broken if you fail to understand this, or plainly refuse it
>>16148213>perception is directly tied to the matter arrangement of our form.I agree and that's why you're wrong. Our physiology isn't exactly the same and minor differences can have huge consequences for what our experience is like.
Keep fartin Come on you know you gotta
>>16148217>Our physiology isn't exactly the same and minor differences can have huge consequences for what our experience is like.I am not disagreeing with you on this.
>>16148223Then to return to the theme of the thread: given that consciousness correlates with physiology, even when consciousness is entirely reduced to physiology, it must be true that physiology has a dual nature, or when all matter, space and time are reduced to parts of consciousness, then it must be true that consciousness has a dual nature, so even without souls, you can't get rid of dualism.
>>16148224>even when consciousness is entirely reduced to physiology, it must be true that physiology has a dual natureif the "soul" manifests "inside" a material construct sure. if consciousness is the electrical activity then (We) exist in the EM field. if we were to go somewhere where this EM field doesn't exist we'd stop functioning.the contention with the soul thing is that there's something that exists by itself out there in the EM field or whatever and matter "tunes" to this unique ID soul thing, which I personally think it's retarded.but I'm not sure I can argue against this "soul" forming in that EM field (which is stretching it) in the form of matter arranged based on experience and interactions in the material plane, which "forms" the something which manifests in the EM field, which we call consciousness.
>>16148213 mealso watch this video if you have the 15 minutes, it's quite interesting
