Posted: Aug 10, 2017 8:43 am
by GrahamH
romansh wrote:
So this whole thing started when I claimed, much as the gentleman in your video, that colour was an illusion.

The my red / your red qualia can be called an illusion. The pigments and physics on the bus is different and not an illusion.

But there was this:
romansh wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
I think you are asking if you could see the difference in colour between the red bus and a similar red.

No, I am not Graham.

I am asking is the surface of the bus actually/physically red? The physics of light and vision suggest not.

Why do the physics of light and vision suggest the bus is not physically red? You seem to be happy that you can accurately tell what colours things are, correlated with physical properties.

And this:
romansh wrote:
And yet when I look at the bus surface, I definitely have a perception of redness. The surface is no more my perception than it is 640 nm. I am not trying to throw doubt on the physics ... just on my perception.

'Perception' seems to have two aspects - function and feel - discrimination and qualia. It may seem that function depends on qualia ut I think that is a mistake. The function is accounted for without qualia. Qualia can be illusory and not impact function. A spectrometer doesn't need qualia to tell bus red from tangerine or yellow ochre.

Rather, I think, the qualia is a reflection of function that helps us understand ourselves. It tells a story of self in the world. Characters and attributes in a story don't have to real things in themselves. The construction of the story can be useful