>>11489539Essentially this. And I personally find many materialist models of reality to be self-refuting, in the fact that they fail to recognize the presence of qualia within objects they claim to precede and produce it. The phenomena of color, for example, is stated to be the interaction of the wavelengths of light, with the system of the eye, and the interpretation of the brain. Namely, that prior to the sensation of colors we recognize as color, there are simply physical frequencies and their interactions with our biological machinery. The issue that I personally have with this model is that our very biological machinery, namely the eye and brain, have only ever been known by us in their colored forms - that is, in the form which already wears the qualia which was argued to be the later product of them. How can one claim that color as a sensation is the product of the eye and brain, if they themselves are colored objects? We're incorporating the product into the process we claimed would create it, which is not coherent in my view.
Let me state it in equation-form:
light frequencies + eye + brain (inputs, which have no qualia)
-> color (output, which has qualia)
But the incoherence is that the eye and brain are already colored, and therefore the inputs contain the output on themselves already.
frequencies + eye (colored, qualia) + brain (colored, qualia) -> color (qualia)
How could one then sensibly argue for said model of color as accurate?
I guess the overall issue is that human beings, in order to investigate reality, are incapable of escaping the biological apparatus they use to do so. This limits the information we can ever come into contact with, to whatever passes through our pre-existing interpretative filter. If we can't leave our physical bodies and still investigate the universe, then the nature of our physical bodies will dictate the universe we can ever come to know.
I'm very open to criticism, so let me know what you think.
