>>14259902What are you not understanding here?
Two identical physical systems may not have to have the same identical qualitative experiences of the same physical stimuli in order to have the same behavior/reaction/etc. Thus there exists a thing that does exist, qualia, that is not physical. We can never know what the internal state of a system is, even in principle, regardless of our knowledge of physics or the system.
What is the confusion here?
>You already said throughout this thread that the model is more abstract than what it describes. Now you're backpedaling?I never said maybe you're confusing me for someone else?
Imagine two exactly equivalent physical brains studying the exact same math equations that describe newtonian mechanics. They have the exact same physical reaction in their eyes and brain etc. to seeing the text that is explaining the content, they have the exact same understanding of it, but one of them sees qualitatively the light of the words as red while the other blue (the light vibrates at 550nm, so we'd even call it 'green' lol). They have an inverted qualia perception of everything despite all physical and computational aspects of their being being exactly equivalent in all respects.
This is a thought demonstration of the existence of a property that DOES EXIST in reality, but that is not physical. We can never, even in principle, use empirical or physical sciences to know whether or not such a thing is happening, and we could never even construct a physical model that would indicate that such information exists but is not obtainable. The information that's being discussed here is not physical in nature but it does exist in reality.
You have to assume, a priori, that this can not happen, whereas I just have to say "we can never know" and therefore I am right and you are wrong, and qualia exists.
