Daniel

The inherent unreality of qualia is not being discussed. Instead, you're posting many words about points to which I have already agreed. That is your choice, but I am not in any way encouraging it.

If so then the denial of qualia originally posted in the thread was, let's say, mis-spoken? Please confirm?

This sort of nullification, I'm sure would be very comforting for the drunk driver who has killed or hurt someone. Or is comforting for anyone who has regrets. "It's all a dream, it's all a dream, none of this is real..."

I have already agreed to this. I already understand this. None of this has any bearing on what is happening outside the skull. That's the whole point. My question was not "how much is missing" I asked "how much is incorrect. See below: And you never answered my question about the diagrams I sent you or the conversation we are having. The reason this is important is because you seem to be assuming that nothing exists outside the mind even though there is abundant evidence for it. This nullification of everything seems to be produced by beginning with doubt and skepticsm but then balloons into denial of everything without rational reasons. So, I am asking: where did the editted diagrams I produced come from? How is it possible that you and I were able to reconcile the misunderstanding rapidly UNLESS we are both functionally seeing the same diagrams with the same content?

Even an estimate would be useful here. The perception of my arm is... what? 75% correct? 80%? 99%?

@kakapo, You keep saying the perception is not the actual object. That's true. But you have not told me one thing about the perception which is false. Just becuase the perception is not 100% accurate, does not mean it is faulty. There needs to be a problem. There needs to be some measure of the inaccuracy and where that inaccuracy exists.

But plato's analogy is an exaggeration to make a point. It's exaggerated. The shadows on the all ARE reality. They are in a cave. There are fires for light and warmth. Why are you assuming the shadows are not real. And why are you assuming there's a problem if I look at the TV and see some intruder picked on the security camera. That's not a problem, that's a solution to a big problem. I know it's not actually my arm, but it's a very-very good abstraction. Super-duper good, much-much-much better than a 2-d picture on a TV. A pipe I can put in my mouth and smoke is a very-very-very good likeness of a pipe. Comparing it to a picture is, forgive me, silly. Not even close.

The problem again, is there seems to be an assumption being made that the inner experience is NOT accurate simply because it is not known to be perfect.

I've heard these analogies before, they simply don't compare. No one looks at a TV and then their own arm and imagines there are human arms inside the TV. The shadows are real shadows. No one looks at a shadow and confuses a shadow with a human being. No one confuses a painting of pipe with a pipe. No one goes to a resteraunt and literally EATS the menu.

I understand what you're saying, but that does not mean that none of those things ALSO exist outside of my brain. OK. Are we having this conversation? Did you have any possible clue the way I was going to edit and update those diagrams to rapidly get us on the same page? If not, then this experience between you and I is real. I am not in your brain. The experience of interacting with me is happening in your brain. But those diagrams are not the product of some random neurochemical false perception that your brain conjured up. Those editted diagrams came from outside your brain. And we both looked at them and saw the same things. That's pretty strong evidence of a shared objective reality outside the mind, don't you think?

The problem I have with this idea, is that there is an implication using the word "abstraction" that the representation is inaccurate or false. I agree it's incomplete. But, that doesn't mean that human sensory faculties are somehow distorting reality to the point where the existence of objects that are outside the brain are doubted. That's a HUGE distortion. And if the mechanisms of intoxicants can be studied and the neurochemical effects determined to be a corruption / disruption / impairment of the sensory faculties of the brain, then, the perception while intoxicated can be labeled as false. The dead bodies resulting from drunk drivers confirms it.

That's just semantics, isn't it? Once I define 'seeing' in terms of electro-magnetic waves of light, then that connects the outer object with the inner experience. And I thought you brought a sciency article confirming this?

Yes. I am most familiar with these concepts as "simulation theory". A perfectly fair statement. But it's not the actual-observed. Observed is a misnomer. The 'observed' is an object outside the brain. I think we, you and I, need to agree on a better word / phrase for this. And, I think we, you and I, need to agree on a word / phrase for what exists outside the brain in behind the "question-mark". Once we agree on those words, 80% of the struggle in our discussion is ended.

OK... last diagram, and then I think I've explained myself enough. And hopefully we can have a normal conversation. The intoxicant effects the observer and what you're calling the observed. It doesn't change the object at all. Nothing changes about the eggs and the pan on the cooktop. Agreed? That means that the hallucination is only changing the perception. It doesn't say anything about whether or not actual reality can or cannot be seen.

This is how **I** understand what you are describing above. This is from the first reply you wrote to me and silent-thunder. See the difference? I can totally get on board with saying what is happening outside the brain is not perfectly known. But so far there has not been any reasons brought for concluding that these qualities are ONLY constructs lacking any inherent reality.

I know.

I know. This is what you're describing . Notice, please, what you are calling the "observed" is just the "observation" on a screen. Not a literal screen, but it's still just perception. Just observation. The actual-observed-object could be eggs on a pan, or it could be flying monkeys. The actual-observed-objects are are things outside the brain. And there's still 3 phenomena. The stuff behind the question mark exists. Agreed? Using the 'observed' for what is in the brain makes this more cumbersome. There's no good reason to use 'observed for what is happening in the brain. If a person closes their eyes, they are not observing anything. They might be imagining something. Or dreaming something. But they are NOT observing anything ith their eyes closed. It's better to use the words 'obersavtion' or 'perception' or 'the-mind's-eye'. But it's definitely not the observed. I'm using the word 'observation' to try to sync up with you.

Oy. I understand you. Do you understand me? You said you couldn't understand the words I was saying because they are out of context. I'm trying to put them into context, so that we can have a discussion. But you seem to be ignoring what I'm writing. How about a diagram? This is your own picture, that you posted. OK? Please: The little man is the observer The eggs and the pan on the screen are the observation The eggs and the pan on the cooktop is the observed observer observation observed Do you understand what I am saying right now? This is important. If this works, I'll keep using diagrams. OK?

Ahhhhh. Thank you. That gag was getting uncomfy and it seemed odd that you would keep quoting me, but, I was not to reply. I feel like I understand what you're saying perfectly. Where we disagree is: I am considering 3 different phenomena as reality: observer, observation, and observed. You are considering 2 different phenomena as reality: observer, and observed. Good so far?

No prob. Seems like you're looking for an echo chamber. Preaching to the choir. I understand. I see this is in the Buddhist forum. It doesn't have anything to do with not understanding my words does it? That was just a smoke screen. Bye.

Respectfully, did you read what I wrote previously about wavelengths? Did you read what I said about the difference between qualia and experience? You don't know what a drunk driver is? You don't know that they kill people? Meaning their perception is altered causing death. Maybe you don't agree that it's a good analogy, or relevant, but... if you're telling me you don't understand what those words mean, I can excuse myself from your thread. This doesn't follow for me. I'm sorry. It just doesn't. The halucination is evidence of a change in brain chemistry which in turn produces impaired ( changed / altered ) perception. This has nothing to do with reality. It has everything to do with perception. The test you're proposing ( If hallucinations exist then actual reality cannot be perceived ) is not testing reality. It's testing perception. Just re-read what you wrote: "If it were possible to see actual reality, such a thing as a hallucination could not occur." "to see" means that your test is about perception, not reality. The physical sense of "seeing" is being examined. Not reality. So. All that can be said from this test is that perception can be altered. But the test says nothing about the qualia, the attributes themself. If the scientific method is desired to be employed, a different test needs to be developed for that. The display on television is not the same as the garden. The display on the camera is different. Notice what you said. "What you see and experience might be a representation of what is happening outside of your skull, but it is not required to be, as is evidenced by the fact you can hallucinate." Right. The events outside the skull is 'reality'. The perception may or may not agree with what is happening outside the skull. Outside the skull = qualia = observed Inside the skull = perception = observation Inside the skull = observer observer = observation observer =/= observed

I think I understand your position. It's below: I simply disagree with this. This ^^ . I agree with this. My assertion from my previous post restated using these terms would be: experience =/= qualia. experience is a sensation which results from qualia. If I am on DMT and somehow go walk around, I'm still going to be tripping over stuff and walking into walls even if I do not have any visual or physical sensations of their presence. The intoxication fades; I will have bumps and bruises. If what you're saying is true, there would be no deaths from drunk drivers. This ^^ . I basically, mostly, agree with this. But would replace crude with material. Or maybe coarse. Perhaps hollow. And only if when you say 'see' you're describing what most consider the physical senses. If I understand, though, that would mean: "In reality there is no such thing as color, shape, texture, smell, sound, or any of that." is false. Not the best analogy, imo. The shadows are still shadows. Nothing has changed about them. They still exist in exactly the same way they did before. And if they leave the cave, that's a totally different scenario. No one is leaving our shared objective reality such that qualia are abstractions which are inherently unreal. Maybe-maybe one could talk about dreams, and dreaming. But the bed still exists even if the person is under full anesthesia just as it does when they are awake. Nothing has changed about the bed during the dream state.