Ok, this is very difficult to explain. And impossible to answer. Lets say, We all look at the sky and it appears blue, you ask anyone what color the sky is, the answer will be blue. However we only call that color blue because we have been told that what you see when you look at the sky is the color 'blue' My point is what if we all perceive color differently, I look at the sky and I perceive a color I have been told is blue, but a different person, if they could look though my minds eye would perceive my blue as a green. Basically we might all interpret colors differently, we all look at the sky and the color we see my vary differently from person to person yet we have been told it is blue so we all call it blue. Don't think about how we are able to see color, the spectrum light refracting etc etc. Think about after we have taken in images how our brain perceives them. Give this alot of thought if it interests you. When I first thought this I was coming up with answers right away but then the deeper I thought I kept finding reason they dont work. Once you have your mind around the concept I am trying to get across you will find it very hard to find an answer. Think about it and then imagine if this similar effect can happen on emotions, state of mind and spirituality. Perception is the most complex and insane of all lifes characterisitics in my opinion. It might even be the very cause for our spirituality. Let me know what you think and if you find a flaw by all means tell me, ill most likely be able to prove it wrong, but if not and you can satisfly my curiousity I shall be forever in awe of your wisdom.
You also put your intention out there... this desire you have to prove you're right. Prove I'm wrong lol.
Do I dare say "First, prove you can prove something" Yes, desire may be there, but maybe what I desire is to be wrong? Or even understood?
This doesn't seem to be a helpful attitude if one wishes to discuss the problems of philosophy. If you think that it's fundamentally impossible to prove anything, you've really excused yourself from modern philosophy. Which is fine-you may not be interested in it. But we are . This is a classic problem. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_Spectrum for some basic info. David Chalmers uses the possibility of inverted spectra to establish that mental properties cannot be logically supervenient on the physical. Personally, the possibility of inverted spectra implies some ridiculous things which I'm not willing to accept, and so I deny the possibility. I'm actually considering inverted spectra for my thesis topic. I'm attacking Chalmers' version of the problem, so I assume epiphenomenalism (i.e. that conscious experience has no causal effect on the physical world) and dualism (that conscious experience is not logically supervenient on the physical). My current thought is that it is not logically necessary that the laws of nature stay the same over time. So it is possible that the laws of nature which determine which color qualia I experience in a given brain-state might suddenly change. Suppose these laws changed at midnight last night so that today, my spectrum is inverted. I get up, go outside, and see an orange sky. But, since I've assumed epiphenomenalism, the fact that I'm seeing an orange sky rather than a blue sky can have no effect on the way I behave or on my psychological states-I will continue to act as if the sky is blue, and I will believe that it is blue. So it seems that the possibility of inverted spectra implies that we cannot know that the sky is blue today (really that the sky is the same color today as it was yesterday). But it seems pretty obvious that the sky today indeed IS the same color as it was yesterday. So inverted spectra must be impossible. There are a few responses I think Chalmers can make here, but I haven't thought a whole lot about their implications yet.
Right, then admit you are limiting your possibilities and we're fine. I accept what you're saying could be possible, but if I agreed with you 100%, why would I need to be bkadoctaj and not vostibuckle?
Yeah that's sort of what i'm getting at, your idea of assumed epiphenomenalism seem to take it to a different level (If im right about what you mean that is) I think I need to read into this alot further but it looks like it shares alot of the same ideas i have been having. It is such a confusing problem. Excellent reply friend, thank you.
What I was trying to say was that your disagreement is a fundamental one, which immediately prohibits you from engaging in most of modern philosophy. Which, like I said, is perfectly fine-I'm not saying it's wrong or that you should think differently. It's just that you're playing by different rules, so I can't play with you.
I'm not sure what you mean exactly. Basically I posted this on a forum because I am interested in other opinions. Do you have one? Or do you answer questions with non-related questions?
There's an accessible discussion of the problem which concludes that it's impossible in Douglas Hofstadter's "I Am a Strange Loop". The rest of the book is basically a sketch of a theory of consciousness. I don't know of any stuff that tries to show inverted spectra are possible, besides Chalmers', which doesn't go all that in depth.
Not sure how to answer the last one. For example, how does it tie in with the idea of this thread? Rules? Sounds like syntactical logic is yours.
It's mine, but it also belongs to anyone else who is playing the philosophy game (though with some variation). If you want to deny that a reasoned argument based on logic has no significance, then you cannot engage in philosophy. Perhaps you're engaging in spirituality here? Personally I think the two should be separate forums, but I guess there aren't many here who like to discuss real philosophy without spirituality.
Don't try to logically argue that philosophy and bkadoctaj are incompatible lol. Your rules... Hey, Cos Mic has his own forum... why not create and administrate yours? You know I find something special in East Asian philosophy... but if I wanted rules I could just be an orderly Confucian.
Right, good point. Because presumably you mean something different by "philosophy" than I do. I just usually assume that the word "philosophy" is used to mean what I take it to mean. I think wikipedia sums it up nicely: But if you mean something different when you say "philosophy", then sure, you could possibly play at it too. "Eastern philosophy" is a good example, because to me Eastern philosophy isn't really philosophy. Certainly still very interesting and valuable, though.
I think "ego" sums it up nicely. Oh, boy... now you opened a box that's not closing: why is Eastern philosophy not philosophy? Is it because of your Western predilection?
No, it's simply because I take the word "philosophy" to mean something roughly equivalent to the wikipedia snippet I posted. It's not that I think Eastern philosophy is somehow less valuable than Western, and that Western philosophy is "better", it's just that since I'm studying in the department of "philosophy" and earning a degree in "philosophy" and taking "philosophy" classes etc, I naturally use the term "philosophy" to mean what it means in the context of these institutions and traditions. When I say "Eastern philosophy is not philosophy", all I mean is that what I mean when I say "philosophy" does not include Eastern philosophy. No value judgments involved.