I’m sorry you have such a boring and soul destroying job, but I do not see how that is relevant to the discussion.
You seem to have nothing to offer.
Are your dyslexic?
Do you not know how to use a spelling checker?
You you think you are qualified to make any comment on philosophy?
If you think any of this is “nonsense”, then you are allowed to say in what way.
Sadly all you are doing is lashing out and saying nothing.
If you think my arguments are not ‘rational’, you can say why. Sadly all you are doing is throwing around insults.
I am assuming (possibly naively) that you might have an interest in Philosophy as you are posting on a philosophy forum. But you are offering nothing but insults.
So, if you want to contribute to a philosophical debate, maybe you could start by answering the question.
“How does a spectrum exist?”
Hobbes, when she sees red for the first time, she doesn’t learn a whole new thing, she just learns another way of taking in the same information that was formerly only quantitative. (arguably, it still is only quantitative) Think of it as learning what it is, but in another language. She already knew that there was a thing that existed that exhibited certain wavelengths of light, now she has more information on it, but if that information can be reduced accurately to a quantitative form, like a wavelength, then there isn’t anything new really being learned. It can seem like it, but could you imagine after a while of her going around and experiencing red, she’d eventually realize that, “hey, I thought this was all new stuff here but there’s really nothing about it I didn’t already know other than that which I couldn’t due to my inability to perceive red with my own eyes”.
I mean, everything is something, so if there’s something then you’ve got something.
Also, you use the phrase, “we have no cause to think that our internal experiences are the same”.
I ask, “What cause do we have to believe them to be different?”
Can I also take a stab at, “how does a spectrum exist?”?
I’d say, in whatever the best way is that we can describe it. Our description should describe more spectrums than it does anything else. It might not be a perfect one, but if we stay within a few rules we can have the “best possible definition” of a spectrum, and in that definition should be the information that you need to distinguish them from other objects.
Seems to me that color blindness actually makes the case for objective qualia, not against it.
Take the Mary example, she comes out into the colored world for the first time.
Now supposed she’s completely color-blind. That was fine in her black-and-white box, but now she’s got people saying,
“Don’t eat the purple jelly beans, they taste like shit.”
and
“Go when the light is green, stop when it’s red.”
“For the love of God, Mary!! CUT THE RED WIRE NOW!!!”
And so on. It should be abundantly clear that there's a whole source of information that Mary didn't have in the box, still doesn't have now, and has now become important where it wasn't important before. The question of 'how do we know your qualia of red is like my qualia of red' is a question of general skepticism, not a question of psychological construction. That is, by reflecting on the personal nature of qualia, we explore skepticism, knowledge, and doubt. We can't, though, say anything about the qualia being a construction from this, because don't forget- we don't actually have any REASON to say our qualia of red differs overmuch- we're just bullshitting to explore the nature of knowledge.
And let’s not forget the nature of art. Art relies on qualia being the same in order to bring about the same effect. Take a more obvious example- sound. Imagine two people enjoying what they botyh take to be an incredibly talented singer. Could it be that to one of them, the singer sounds like a typical musical voice, and to the other it sounds like a chimpanzee with it’s leg held to a campfire? We can’t say it’s impossible, but it certainly seems unlikely- the very nature of the qualia is linked to the artistic appreciation and expression of such, it seems. Color is like that too, I suspect. The Mona Lisa couldn’t be the Mona Lisa if it looked entirely different to everybody.
No - you are presupposing that a concept “spectrum” preexists human perception.
Let’s imagine that humans had dog’s eyes (monochromatic), or that Mary’s world was our everyday experience. In such a world no such thing as a spectrum exists, in fact it derives from our experience of the world and not from the world objectively.
In objective terms there is no natural quality “spectrum” necessitated by the EM scale. The spectrum is wholly contingent on the perception of humans who can agree on a shared experience.
You have not made a case for qualia being objective. All you have done it to assert that qualia are subjective.
You might also be misunderstanding the range and complexity of what we call “colour blindness”
Very rarely are people completely blind of colour, others show profound differences in colour perception to the norm; whilst others, like me, the difference in colour perception is very subtle; then there is the cultural (genetic) differences, where some cultures can see colours that no other culture can see.
All of which calls in to question the assertion that red is always red, and asserts that people’s colour perception is unique to themselves, or at least it is impossible to assert that we see the same thing, even if we can agree that the lights have changed and can use the same word to describe “red”
Since relevance is a huge part of philosophy which most philosophers are glaringly unaware of, it seems that my words falls for deaf ears.
The point is that you indeed comprehend what i am writing, and the points which are forwarded, therefore dyslexia is an irrelevant point, and usually dug up when the attacker has nothing more to offer in the debate. Quite patheticly.
What i’m trying to tell you, is that i’m a critical thinker, and you seems not be be any of such kind, always spewing insults and vicous attacks.
This is pure rubbish, and does not in any way relate to real life.
We can convert instuctions to actions, color blind doesn’t define the world through their inabilities, but has the knowledge that they are color blind, and can in most cases, perfectly compensate for their blindness.
Color blinnd people are not clueless when it comes to traffic lights.
The blind may ask people to help them navigate through a color panel to make the right choise, if the colors has no text attached to them.