Dualism is a confused notion. If, in a long journey through gathering a tremendous degree of knowledge, you arrive at dualism, you’ve made a mistake somewhere and need to go back and see where you divided by zero. If your logical chain is in fact sound to a mathematical degree of certainty, then arriving at dualism is a reductio ad absurdum of your starting point.
I fail to see what your actual position is. Mine is, first, that colors exist, and second, that they don’t exist in standard physical ontology. Please make a comparably clear statement about what you believe the truth to be.
Colours “exist” as a fact of perception. If you’re looking for colours without perception, you’ve missed what normative usage of “colour” means. You’ve also committed a ton of compression fallacy, assuming that all possible definitions of “colour” do or should refer to the same ontological entity.
You’ve then covered your views in word salad; I would not attempt to write with such an appalling lack of clarity as you’ve wrapped your views in in this sequence, except for strictly literary purposes; certainly not if my intent were to inform.
You need to seriously consider the possibility that this sequence is getting such an overwhelmingly negative reaction because you’re talking rubbish.
Why do you put “exist” in quotation marks? What does that accomplish? If I chopped off your hand, would you say that the pain does not exist, it only “exists”?
If you’re looking for colours without perception, you’ve missed what normative usage of “colour” means.
I’m not looking for colors without perception; I’m looking for the colors of perception somewhere in physical reality; since colors are real, and physical reality is supposed to be the only sort of reality there is.
You’ve then covered your views in word salad; I would not attempt to write with such an appalling lack of clarity as you’ve wrapped your views in in this sequence, except for strictly literary purposes; certainly not if my intent were to inform.
It’s not so easy to describe conscious states accurately, and a serious alternative to dualism isn’t so easy to invent or convey either. I’m improvising a lot. If you make an effort to understand it, it may make more sense.
But let us return to your views. Colors only exist as part of perceptions; fine. Presumably you believe that a perception is a type of physical process, a brain process. Do you believe that some part of these brain processes is colored? If someone is seeing green, is there a flicker of actual greenness somewhere in or around the relevant brain process? I doubt that you think this. But then, at this point, nothing in your model of reality is actually green, neither the world outside the brain, nor the world inside the brain. Yet greenness is manifestly there in reality: perceptions contain actual greenness. Therefore your model is incomplete. Therefore, if you wish to include actual conscious experiences in your model, they’ll have to go in alongside but distinct from the physical processes. Therefore, you will have to be a dualist.
I am not advocating dualism, I’m just telling you that if you don’t want to deny the phenomenology of color, and you want to retain your physical ontology, you will have to be a dualist.
Dualism is a confused notion. If, in a long journey through gathering a tremendous degree of knowledge, you arrive at dualism, you’ve made a mistake somewhere and need to go back and see where you divided by zero. If your logical chain is in fact sound to a mathematical degree of certainty, then arriving at dualism is a reductio ad absurdum of your starting point.
Perhaps you missed that I have argued against functionalism because it implies dualism.
Then you need to do the same for ontologically basic qualia.
I fail to see what your actual position is. Mine is, first, that colors exist, and second, that they don’t exist in standard physical ontology. Please make a comparably clear statement about what you believe the truth to be.
Colours “exist” as a fact of perception. If you’re looking for colours without perception, you’ve missed what normative usage of “colour” means. You’ve also committed a ton of compression fallacy, assuming that all possible definitions of “colour” do or should refer to the same ontological entity.
You’ve then covered your views in word salad; I would not attempt to write with such an appalling lack of clarity as you’ve wrapped your views in in this sequence, except for strictly literary purposes; certainly not if my intent were to inform.
You need to seriously consider the possibility that this sequence is getting such an overwhelmingly negative reaction because you’re talking rubbish.
Why do you put “exist” in quotation marks? What does that accomplish? If I chopped off your hand, would you say that the pain does not exist, it only “exists”?
I’m not looking for colors without perception; I’m looking for the colors of perception somewhere in physical reality; since colors are real, and physical reality is supposed to be the only sort of reality there is.
It’s not so easy to describe conscious states accurately, and a serious alternative to dualism isn’t so easy to invent or convey either. I’m improvising a lot. If you make an effort to understand it, it may make more sense.
But let us return to your views. Colors only exist as part of perceptions; fine. Presumably you believe that a perception is a type of physical process, a brain process. Do you believe that some part of these brain processes is colored? If someone is seeing green, is there a flicker of actual greenness somewhere in or around the relevant brain process? I doubt that you think this. But then, at this point, nothing in your model of reality is actually green, neither the world outside the brain, nor the world inside the brain. Yet greenness is manifestly there in reality: perceptions contain actual greenness. Therefore your model is incomplete. Therefore, if you wish to include actual conscious experiences in your model, they’ll have to go in alongside but distinct from the physical processes. Therefore, you will have to be a dualist.
I am not advocating dualism, I’m just telling you that if you don’t want to deny the phenomenology of color, and you want to retain your physical ontology, you will have to be a dualist.