Everyone is qualia blind

[AlexW]

I fully expect that there will be final Explanations for everything, including Consciousness.

You are very optimistic, nice

Your implication that previous interpretations are all worthless when new interpretations are discovered is just wrong. Knowledge builds on itself.

Yes, it does, but sometimes it’s also all thrown over board... flat earth... round earth... earth in center of universe... earth rotates around sun... who knows what quantum mechanics will do...

It is not possible to describe Redness. It can only be Experienced because it is only in the Mind.

If this were so - and I am not saying its not -, then everything, not only Redness, can only be experienced because it is in the mind.
Now replace the word mind with consciousness - and leave out the word “in” because if everything is in something there is no way of telling if there is anything beside it: It can only be experienced because it is consciousness.

Let me try to explain in a slightly different way:
It's like stating that "I experience/'am looking at' the universe" implying that I am separate from it... but, at the same time, there would be no universe if we remove the content - we cannot remove planets, stars, gas clouds, humans, not even a grain of sand and still have the universe left - the content IS the universe, no content, no universe. As such, every apparently separate thing is simply again "made of" the universe - and if "I am looking at the universe" then the universe is, in fact, looking at/experiencing itself.

[Dontaskme]

You can only Experience Redness.

Red is an experience. Yes.

Does this experience need to be explained. No

What would there be to explain about this Red experience?

embarrassed communists

-Imp

Sounds like a red flag to me, or maybe it's a red herring, all a bit fishy, but oooh how we love to master bait this fish.

[SteveKlinko]

I fully expect that there will be final Explanations for everything, including Consciousness.

You are very optimistic, nice

Your implication that previous interpretations are all worthless when new interpretations are discovered is just wrong. Knowledge builds on itself.

Yes, it does, but sometimes it’s also all thrown over board... flat earth... round earth... earth in center of universe... earth rotates around sun... who knows what quantum mechanics will do...

It is not possible to describe Redness. It can only be Experienced because it is only in the Mind.

If this were so - and I am not saying its not -, then everything, not only Redness, can only be experienced because it is in the mind.
Now replace the word mind with consciousness - and leave out the word “in” because if everything is in something there is no way of telling if there is anything beside it: It can only be experienced because it is consciousness.

Let me try to explain in a slightly different way:
It's like stating that "I experience/'am looking at' the universe" implying that I am separate from it... but, at the same time, there would be no universe if we remove the content - we cannot remove planets, stars, gas clouds, humans, not even a grain of sand and still have the universe left - the content IS the universe, no content, no universe. As such, every apparently separate thing is simply again "made of" the universe - and if "I am looking at the universe" then the universe is, in fact, looking at/experiencing itself.

The Physical Universe is outside the Mind but our Descriptions of the Physical Universe are inside the Mind. The Experience of Redness is only inside the Mind. There is no Redness outside of the Mind. The 670nm Light is outside the Mind but it is not the Redness. You don't need 670nm Light to Experience Redness in a Dream.

[Sculptor]

Everyone thinks there is a “hard” mind body problem.
But isn’t it just sloppy epistemology of color, that is our problem?

I would love to hear if everyone does or does not agrees with the “correct” answers to this Socratic method test to help people understand intrinsic qualities, asking: “Are you Qualia Blind?”

Define.
What is Qualia Blindness?
How would a person, not qualia blind (a) differ from a person who is qualia blind (b)?
What does a and b understand about "red"?
What does b lack that a has?

I think it would be helpful for you to answer these questions without directing people out of the thread to the questionnaire, using your own words plainly.


PS. Has Brent.Allsop "left the building"???
I think I saw him shopping with Elvis yesterday

[AlexW]

The Physical Universe is outside the Mind but our Descriptions of the Physical Universe are inside the Mind. The Experience of Redness is only inside the Mind. There is no Redness outside of the Mind. The 670nm Light is outside the Mind but it is not the Redness.

So they say...

You don't need 670nm Light to Experience Redness in a Dream.m

You also dont need a physical universe to experience anything in a dream... why do you believe it actually exists in reality?
Is It more than hearsay?
Have you ever experienced this physical universe, or maybe 670nm light?
Or have you only ever experienced “Redness” (the experience, not the concept)?

See, its all upside down.. you think light comes from some place outside, from not-mind/not-consciousness and somehow magically is converted into an experience of Redness, and as such into mind/consciousness, but imagine there is no such conversion necessary at all, because all there is is this experience/mind/dream experiencing itself... hard to swallow, I get it, but much more elegant than all these intricate theories of outside/inside, physical/mental, including all the magical transformations from one state to the other.

[SteveKlinko]

The Physical Universe is outside the Mind but our Descriptions of the Physical Universe are inside the Mind. The Experience of Redness is only inside the Mind. There is no Redness outside of the Mind. The 670nm Light is outside the Mind but it is not the Redness.

So they say...

You don't need 670nm Light to Experience Redness in a Dream.m

You also dont need a physical universe to experience anything in a dream... why do you believe it actually exists in reality?
Is It more than hearsay?
Have you ever experienced this physical universe, or maybe 670nm light?
Or have you only ever experienced “Redness” (the experience, not the concept)?

See, its all upside down.. you think light comes from some place outside, from not-mind/not-consciousness and somehow magically is converted into an experience of Redness, and as such into mind/consciousness, but imagine there is no such conversion necessary at all, because all there is is this experience/mind/dream experiencing itself... hard to swallow, I get it, but much more elegant than all these intricate theories of outside/inside, physical/mental, including all the magical transformations from one state to the other.

I get where you are coming from. Who knows, maybe there really is only Consciousness. Maybe it is all just a Simulation. But from my life experience everything is consistent with there being an actual external Physical World. I Detect this Physical World using Physical Sensory apparatus (Eyes, Ears, etc.) that are part of my Physical Mind (Brain). I have to go with what I know. If there were only Consciousness then there would be no need for a Physical World. If there was actually no Physical World then that would have to be Explained.

[AlexW]

I get where you are coming from. Who knows, maybe there really is only Consciousness. Maybe it is all just a Simulation.

Who knows... as I see it, the only thing one can "rely on" is ones own direct experience.
All explanations/interpretations of direct experience should be questioned, investigated and, if found to be false or misleading, taken with "a grain of salt."

But from my life experience everything is consistent with there being an actual external Physical World. I Detect this Physical World using Physical Sensory apparatus (Eyes, Ears, etc.) that are part of my Physical Mind (Brain). I have to go with what I know.

Sure, in a way... There is no harm (quite the opposite) in interpreting an experience of a certain color/shape, taste and texture as "apple".
But getting lost in the interpretation (the "physical world" is ultimately not more than an interpretation) and forgetting where it originates from (conscious experience) can do quite a bit of harm - it can even result in getting kicked out of Garden Eden and be condemned to live life in mind made separation.

If there were only Consciousness then there would be no need for a Physical World. If there was actually no Physical World then that would have to be Explained.

No, there is no need for a separate physical world - the dream doesn't require it and reality doesn't either - but what is it that does require an explanation? You cannot explain something that is not a thing - you can explain its apparent parts, but you will never be able to explain the whole by explaining the parts (simply because these parts are actually not real, they are interpretations of direct experience, which, in itself, is pure consciousness and, as such, has no parts)

[SteveKlinko]

I get where you are coming from. Who knows, maybe there really is only Consciousness. Maybe it is all just a Simulation.

Who knows... as I see it, the only thing one can "rely on" is ones own direct experience.
All explanations/interpretations of direct experience should be questioned, investigated and, if found to be false or misleading, taken with "a grain of salt."

But from my life experience everything is consistent with there being an actual external Physical World. I Detect this Physical World using Physical Sensory apparatus (Eyes, Ears, etc.) that are part of my Physical Mind (Brain). I have to go with what I know.

Sure, in a way... There is no harm (quite the opposite) in interpreting an experience of a certain color/shape, taste and texture as "apple".
But getting lost in the interpretation (the "physical world" is ultimately not more than an interpretation) and forgetting where it originates from (conscious experience) can do quite a bit of harm - it can even result in getting kicked out of Garden Eden and be condemned to live life in mind made separation.

If there were only Consciousness then there would be no need for a Physical World. If there was actually no Physical World then that would have to be Explained.

No, there is no need for a separate physical world - the dream doesn't require it and reality doesn't either - but what is it that does require an explanation? You cannot explain something that is not a thing - you can explain its apparent parts, but you will never be able to explain the whole by explaining the parts (simply because these parts are actually not real, they are interpretations of direct experience, which, in itself, is pure consciousness and, as such, has no parts)

What I mean is that if the Physical World was non-Physical, or if it was a Simulation, then we should want an Explanation of why we are being Frauded by the Universe into thinking it is real.

[AlexW]

What I mean is that if the Physical World was non-Physical, or if it was a Simulation, then we should want an Explanation of why we are being Frauded by the Universe into thinking it is real.

Non physical or simulation...
I think these are two very different scenarios.
A simulation requires a controller who is outside of the simulation, a god like being controlling the simulation and keeping it going... for whatever reason... fun? Entertainment?
A non physical universe, just like a physical one, doesn’t require a separate controller, it could very well be pure intelligence/consciousness dreaming a dream of separation.
But be that as it may, both scenarios don’t really leave much room for the existence of separate individuals who could deserve an explanation.. in both scenarios they wouldn’t be much more than a collection of thoughts (or sets of data) - does an ever changing, loose collection of concepts really deserve an explanation how it came to be?

[SteveKlinko]

What I mean is that if the Physical World was non-Physical, or if it was a Simulation, then we should want an Explanation of why we are being Frauded by the Universe into thinking it is real.

Non physical or simulation...
I think these are two very different scenarios.
A simulation requires a controller who is outside of the simulation, a god like being controlling the simulation and keeping it going... for whatever reason... fun? Entertainment?
A non physical universe, just like a physical one, doesn’t require a separate controller, it could very well be pure intelligence/consciousness dreaming a dream of separation.
But be that as it may, both scenarios don’t really leave much room for the existence of separate individuals who could deserve an explanation.. in both scenarios they wouldn’t be much more than a collection of thoughts (or sets of data) - does an ever changing, loose collection of concepts really deserve an explanation how it came to be?

We are still Conscious Entities in whatever Reality we exist in. The question will always remain as to what we are doing here. Deserving an Explanation is Irrelevant. I want an Explanation.

[Skepdick]

Deserving an Explanation is Irrelevant. I want an Explanation.

Perhaps you should start by telling us what you want exactly?

Tell us what an "explanation" is.

[henry quirk]

Don't hold your breath...

[SteveKlinko]

Deserving an Explanation is Irrelevant. I want an Explanation.

Perhaps you should start by telling us what you want exactly?

Tell us what an "explanation" is.

First tell us the meaning of Is.

[Skepdick]

First tell us the meaning of Is.

Meaning?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem

[SteveKlinko]

First tell us the meaning of Is.

Meaning?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem

?