Except we today understand redness as not existing out there, as not a property of things out there. Instead, we now think, because of scientists, that what is out there is only electromagnetic quantity. This effectively leaves only our mind as a locale for the existence of redness, which is itself undoubtable, at least for me whenever I see red.
Gravity by contrast is believed to be a property of things out there. Maybe it isn't but there's no reasonable view of gravity as a property of the human mind. In fact, all we know of gravity is the idea of gravity, not gravity itself, whereas we not only have the idea of redness but we also experience redness directly as qualia so we know redness in itself.
You just don't get it.
EB
You've bee playing with
untermensche too long. I used the illustration of sense of object falling as a parallel to sense of red. Redness sense has it's physical analog and physical sensing mechanisms just as things falling have their sensing mechanisms.
You failed to pick up the fact that I modeled both redness and falling as connected with physical capabilities humans have for detecting and processing such. Since humans have those physical mechanism it is most simple to presume these sense are derived from human physical processes for each. Ergo, instead of inventing qualia which agree only with one can believe, I proposed sensing is repeating in some form(repeating sensor activity or recovering memory which would also be repeating sensor activity) by physical brain processes.and which eventually can be physically understood.
So not only do I get it, I reject it in favor of a physical explanation, Everything changed when it became understood humans were after the fact thinkers and planners. Much more economical and ends the need for a science of the non material quale, consciousness, free will, and all that other bull shit from classical period.
It's midnight, I'm tired. So tomorrow.
You really don't get it. The point is that we experience redness so it cannot possibly not exist as such, whereas we don't experience at all the possible correlates of redness in the physical world, say, electromagnetic frequencies and such, so in fact we don't even know they exist (as such). So all we can do about EM things is to suppose their existence on the basis of our qualia. Same thing for gravity. Gravity is mental construct to signify some phenomenon out there that we don't experience at all. All we have are qualia that we take to be sensations in our bodies, such as the sensation of acceleration, which itself is actually not a sensation of acceleration at all but of the sensations from the constraints acceleration puts on our body.
Everything you've ever said on this board always come down to this that science can explain physical phenomena. In fact, that's not even true. What science does is to explain one set of phenomena on the assumption of another set of phenomena, something which basically all human beings do without even bothering to think about it, let alone boast. Scientists are specialists and we need them but being specialist doesn't help understand the broader picture so I'm not surprised about your inability to understand very simple ideas about consciousness, although I do get annoyed by the sheer stupidity of your arguments. The point is that your arguments are irrelevant. You are simply denying the reality of consciousness. It's very simple. You just deny it. And then to show you're not an idiot you go on and on about how science explain things. Yet, these things, while very interesting, are not what the discussion is about, i.e. consciousness, subjective experience, qualia. So, your arguments are irrelevant. They have always been, and I have always told you, and yet you keep going on and on.
The point is science is very useful and it's all very well to do it. But no one's denying that! Yet you keep making irrelevant interjections on how well science works. Enough! We got that already! A long, long time ago. We're all children of the scientific age. We don't need more of this irrelevant apology of science when we talk about consciousness. Science can hope to explain how the brain works. Well, let's be clear here. It won't explain why there are brains. It will explain the properties of brains on the assumption of the properties of neurons, chemicals, elementary particles etc. Good! Do that. What's stopping you? You think people just talking about consciousness and qualia might inadvertently scupper the whole scientific enterprise?!
The only charitable explanation I have for your insistence on irrelevant arguments is that you just don't get it. You have a blind spot. That's also something human beings do you know. They're good at it. Blotch out any inconvenience, distraction, contradiction. And to do that, you are prepared to pour shitloads of the same trite arguments over and over again without ever trying to understand what other people say. You just don't care. You're very competitive but it's a competition in ignorance, irrelevance and sheer stupidity of argument.
You can sleep on it. You'll come back with more irrelevant considerations.
EB
