4 ms·

Aha! This had been troubling me for some time, but I didn't have a name for it. Now I do. Thank you.

• samd 16y ago
  If philosophers can't solve any problems at least we can clarify them pretty well.
  • Tichy 16y ago
    That doesn't show in that Wikipedia article, though. All it contains is some self-referential links. Ie I didn't follow the "qualia" link, but I am pretty sure if I go there, it will just point back to the "hard problem of consciousness".
    • arethuza 16y ago
      It doesn't - it actually goes to a very long and detailed article.
      • Tichy 16y ago
        Long, but still it doesn't say anything. Though I admit at least it acknowledges it's own futility.
        • devinj 16y ago
          I thought it said plenty. Admittedly I only read the first paragraph and went "oh, I get it". They're just things that are subjective, even if we nominally agree on an objective definition. Like, we can all agree that a ketchup bottle is red, but what it really looks like to each of us might be totally different. My red might be your blue, but since your blue things are called red, and my red things are called red, we pretend it's just a single color, instead of a potentially infinite number of colors, a different one for each person. Significantly, this hypothetical becomes real when we talk to, say, a colorblind friend. A ketchup bottle is still red, but it's definitely not the same red-- since it seems "closer" to colors that the non-colorblind would say.
          • deleted 16y ago
            [deleted]
          • Tichy 16y ago
            Still, is that saying much? I think as a programmer. Suppose you have two "brains" with eye inputs: function receptor1Triggered() { this.myColor = 199; } and function receptor1Triggered() { this.myColor = 255; } So one brain represents the color as 199, the other as 255. It doesn't make a difference. Why would it. I don't think the comparison to the colorblind friend is really accurate, as he would actually be receiving different input from you.