>>13410143Exactly. The epistemic iron curtain is an inherent feature of subjectivity -- that is, if one is a concrete object in the physical world. The only access to this world any human subjective viewpoint has is via one's own body. Since reality is objective, this means to experience other internal views would mean quite literally integrating these other objects into your own body.
A physical being can properly only talk about immaterial universals ("the numbers", "the justice") without self-investigatory insights asymptomatically becoming elucidating/informative, or sometimes downright paradox. (Realistically you just go "good enough".)
If angels and other supernatural beings existed, they presumably would not be corporeal and could potentially have an overview from a ontological layer above.
>it doesnt matter what your ne...ow can a mind have a favorite color? how can it prefer any qualias?"Favorite things" are much more mechanistic than the fundamental workings/laws of qualia. They *could* probably be summed up to 1000 pages of documentation about neurons firing certain action potentials.
Philosophers never discount the importance of the brain, and personalities can be as simple as just a specific purely physical neural layout/chemistry. Qualia are very much a separate issue from any human personality concerns.
>Why does one neural net do one thing and a different one does another? becausehe different frequencies of light they interact with. It's hard to understand what your point is.
>we can be very sure to say that color as a concept is very realYes. But colors are not wavelengths.
>distinction level that is color, but in your senses of smell, taste, and hearing.What? You are incoherent.
>its really is more plausible that were seeing the same colors.Yes, it was just an illustration of the principle. The hard problem isn't about concretely answering where experience differs (if anything, it's about asking how that could be gleamed).
