= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
shminux comments on Open thread, 24-30 March 2014 - 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 (156)
Scott Aaronson on subjectivity of qualia:
Lol.
Seriously though, that's a really bad argument, why have you added it here?
You can read the full argument in the comments to http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1753
"Dude, what if, like there's a number in between zero and the smallest positive real?"
Are you indicating that only the relation between wavelengths and the brain's information processing counts, and that differing conscious perceptions of these wavelengths are analogous to the use of different sets of symbols used to denote the additive relationship between "two-ness" and "four-ness" (two plus two equals four and deux plus deux égalent quatre)?
No, I just meant that, just because a 'stoner' can ask a question, doesn't mean the answer to the question is permanently unknowable.
Edit: Or even that difficult to answer. In fact, that a stoner can ask a question is almost no evidence of anything at all. Applying principle of charity, if Scott meant that anyone can always ask that question, that's true for any question; you can always keep asking if two plus two equals four. Now, if in fact Aaronson wants to present evidence for the claim that we can never know if your and my 'blues and reds' are the same, that would be cool, but there was no real argument given.