Posted: Aug 10, 2017 4:58 pm
by romansh
GrahamH wrote: The my red / your red qualia can be called an illusion. The pigments and physics on the bus is different and not an illusion.

I agree with both statements.

GrahamH wrote: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.

This could be purely a semantic issue. Again I am quite happy to call the bus, red; speaking pragmatically and in the vernacular. But on a more philosophical bent, thinking the bus has same surface properties as I perceive, I think is a mistake. Now the homuncular "I", I am using to refer to my perceptions is also a problem or an illusion. But that is another thread.

GrahamH wrote:'Perception' seems to have two aspects - function and feel - discrimination and qualia. It may seem that function depends on qualia [b]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

This I think is an interesting thought. And I think there is likely some indirect evidence for this position. eg people who are blind due to some neurological reason but can respond to what the retinas have detected but has not presented itself as qualia.

That would imply qualia are a relativity new development in the evolutionary time scale ... developed with language to tell stories. I am reminded of Jayne's Bicameral Mind.

edit added new