= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
SilasBarta comments on How to think like a quantum monadologist - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (266)
Are you sure about that? Do you think the meaning of "bluep" could be conveyed to young humans without having blue objects to point at and without those humans at least forming a concept of blue? I also doubt that this would make physicalism any easier subjectively. Whether it's the experience or the object of the experience which is regarded as blue, something's blue.
I have to go offline now, right in the middle of some heated real-time exchanges. Don't anyone get too steamed if you don't hear back from me for a day or so. :-)
Who modded this up? Is this the standard now for what words a language could have? Whether the concept could be explained to a child? You might as well dismiss the word "oxygen" on the grounds that you can't explain the full chemical model to a child, in a way that allows you to make use of the concept.
In any case, you could explain it to a child: "When you're dreaming about blue, you're just blueping. But when you see blue for real, you're blueping and seeing something blue."
Why is it that "It's impossible to explain ..." always seems to say so much more about the speaker than the concept?