>>10890562>Why so angryProjection
>Nope. All I did was mention that you could probably induce the sensation of “red” by artificially causing action potentials in the visual cortex.No, this is how you began your case
>Of course they won’t know what it’s like until the relevant photons go into their eyeballs and get translated into ions sent to the brain.And in order to maintain the "until" portion of your argument you've increasingly admitted that it's ineffable, if it's ineffable it's impossible for it to be a brainstate because that would imply that it's possible to express it in terms other than itself, it would have to be expressible in terms of a code, undermining your case for it being ineffable.
So either it's ineffable and thus an ontological primitive, or it's expressible in terms of brainstates in which case it should ultimately be expressible in terms of language and some kind of code.
>KidshealthGlad to know they solved the hard problem of consciousness.
>Never said the last one.If you argue for qualia's ineffability, if it's reducible to brainstates, it's reducible to the information those brainstates are encoded with. It IS that encoded information. Otherwise you're saying that there's a special extra category involved in conscious perception.
>Type physicalists posit only a correlation.That's not an ontological position. Under that definition Physicalism could be neutral monism or Panpsychism. If you're going to defend the actual ontological claims of materialism that you started with, and you did, don't shift positions like a coward.
>They resemble nothing you have ever experienced at all? Really, do they?You can imagine all kinds of abstract objects, I've never physically seen a perfect line but I can imagine such a thing using mathematics, I can mathematically model things I've never physically seen.
>Who are these Lovecraftian entities you speak of?We call them architects.
