My thought about perceptions.

How personal your definitions are then. I doubt I'm the only one whose thoughts you come into conflict with.

Am I a cat-scratch?

 

Of course you're not. My definitions aren't exactly personal, though-they're shared by most others in the institutions and traditions I belong to. They're part of western academic culture. That doesn't make them somehow superior to other definitions. But if your definition of philosophy makes it impossible to make any progress on the problem of inverted spectra, then you can't really have anything useful to say about the problem of inverted spectra (except perhaps that we shouldn't care about inverted spectra? ). That's all I was saying.

I don't know what you mean.

 

Now, what if ALL Western philosophy defeated itself, as you seem to suggest that Eastern philosophy does with itself?

 

Ah, I should've been more careful. I meant to say that Eastern philosophy has nothing useful to say about inverted spectra from the point of view of Western philosophy. And that's the game I'm playing here.

I don't think it's true that Eastern philosophy defeats itself. I just think the only thing Eastern philosophy can really say about the problem of inverted spectra is that "there is no problem of inverted spectra", which is generally not what people are looking for when they're thinking about the problem of inverted spectra. Sure, I think that's actually a really great answer (or non-answer), and that that philosophy is worth studying and appreciating. But usually when someone talks about the problem of inverted spectra, they're playing the Western philosophy game, so the Eastern non-answer is just irrelevant.

Of course, you might argue that even if someone is playing the Western philosophy game, the Eastern non-answer is useful in the sense that it might wake them up to their delusions about subject/object duality, etc. And I think I'd agree with you, now that I think about it.

 

That's good.

I guess I find it valuable to try starting from the basic premises of the Easterners... before just analyzing them with my Western methodology (a.k.a. comfort zone).

 

So what do you think Eastern philosophy has to say about the problem of inverted spectra?

It seems to me that it's impossible to even frame the problem, since you have to talk about "conscious experience" as separate from some objective reality. From what I understand (which is not much), that's nonsense in many Eastern philosophies.

 

Inverted spectra is a problem of Western philosophy, which is limited in its being required to consider every apparent paradox a mystery (to be rationalized or theorized)... even to the extent of positively denying a true Universal Oneness.

 

Do you think Western philosophy necessarily conflicts with Eastern philosophy (e.g. theravada/zen/dao)? I consider myself a material monist and I fancy that the Universal Oneness is just the physical universe, the parts of which can only be illusorily differentiated. "The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao," but similarly it seems unlikely to me that the physical laws science comes up with can ever fully characterize the physical universe.

 

As for the laws, I don't see how they could. I mean, why is science so relatively new if the truth has always been right out there?

I don't see any conflict outside of the "self". Which self am I talking about exactly?

YOU.

You-who.

 

sorry

Here's another interesting thought about the problem (again, assuming epiphenomenalism):

Suppose it's possible that our taste sensations could be inverted. Then, there's a possible world in which sugar gives people a yucky taste, but (because of epiphenomenalism) they all act like they love it, often getting ahold of it just because they believe they enjoy the taste, and talking about how good it tastes, etc. But, really, sugar tastes gross for them!

 

Yeah I too have thought this, that everybody perceives things differently, different sobriety levels of conciousness, which is what dictates a person's personality, reactions, etc.

 

honestly, I'm all for what you're going for, but lay off a bit.

he simply offered a topic for discussion/thought... he even said, that we should think about it only if we agreed.

thats all..

 

does it matter if his thoughts conflict with yours?.. theyre his..

 

And...?

 

Did you see what I edited in up there about inverted taste spectrum?