From: John Clark (jonkc@worldnet.att.net)
Date: Thu Feb 24 2000 - 22:55:00 MST
Brent Allsop <allsop@fc.hp.com> Wrote:
> the trivial case is simply to say that a "red" sensations is defined to
> represent 700 nm electromagnetic radiation
I'm really not trying to be difficult and that definition would be fine for most things
but you're trying to use it as part of the foundation for an objective theory
of qualia, one good enough for you to know how I experience the world,
and it's just not good enough for that, not nearly good enough. I won't even
bother about "representation", if you want to work at such a fundamental level
you'd need a deep understanding of what "is" is. No chance!
>computer representations have numerical 3D information but other than that,
>are not in any related way 3D
Seems good enough to me, In what other way do they need to be related?
> Are you saying there is something relevant to whether or not
> qualia exist outside of such simple examples of spatial meaning and
> definitions?
Yes, it's different. I can measure space, I can measure the actions of a robot,
I can measure your actions, but I can't even detect your qualia much less measure it.
> There isn't much complexity at all in what red is like.
I don't know and will never know if red is complex or not but I do know
it's indescribable. Ever word in the dictionary has a definition and every
one of those definitions are made of words that are in the same dictionary,
but no sequence of those words will allow somebody to understand red
who has not already had a direct sensation of it.
John K Clark jonkc@att.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:27:01 MST