(no title)
aklein
|
1 year ago
TBH, I don’t really understand why this is a problem. An explanation is not an experience; it cannot provide to the human brain the same information. Suppose you neurologically induced an experience of seeing that new color without “really” seeing it - surely this would be sufficient to communicate qualia? (And if not, surely it’s just a matter of adjusting the inducement to some degree).
epiccoleman|1 year ago
Most (all?) of our "science" doesn't require any sort of notion of consciousness to work, we can describe the motion of a projectile or an orbit in a way that doesn't depend on having an "experiencer." But there's this weird category of stuff for which that isn't true. (At least, for now).
yibg|1 year ago
plorkyeran|1 year ago
mxkopy|1 year ago
chaps|1 year ago
my theory is that these things are just questions of resolutions of varying latencies.