>>14253997>Saying "why not" is not an argument.LOL, I'm asking you to explain your argument. Apparently you can't. Just say so. The only reason we don't see the same red is because our brains are different. It's completely physical.
>If you are claiming that two exactly physical systems produce the same experience, prove it.So you're saying you just claimed something without actually knowing it? OK, your claim is dismissed.
>The claim that they don't necessarily have the same experienceYou claimed that two exactly equivalent physical stimuli would not produce the same experience, now you're changing that claim?
>is a negative claim that does not require positive evidence/proof.Doesn't follow. Only you would be able to prove your claim by providing one counter-example. But it's not even about empirical proof, since you claimed it directly follows that if we do not see the same red, that proves qualia is not physical. Now apparently you've abandoned that claim. Logically, there is no reason why two identical physical systems would produce different results.
>Because two identical physical systems, would NOT be totally identical in total realityWhy not? You're saying there is something outside physical reality. The burden of proof is on you. Good luck.
>See >>14253963This doesn't do anything to prove your claim. You're just saying that no one can prove that reality is purely physical, but that means the burden of proof falls on you.
