|
Post by silver on Oct 19, 2013 0:19:05 GMT -5
By "first version" do you mean the version you laid out last year or one previous to that? Do you mean to say that the addendum of "if/then" as you've described it here and as Sweet Brown constitutes the second version of QM or was what I read last year the second version? Last year was version1. If/then is version2. Yes, it's conditional. I don't mean to make some tricky pointer to what is prior to the question. My reflections starts with the question, what is before it, if there is anything, is not within the scope of my reflection. No, I'm saying that within the context of my model ideas come first, and qualia are considered only in a conceptual sense. I further defended this view by claiming that actually "evidence" is not what we intuitively think it is. "Evidence" is simply an item to which we attach the word "evidence", so that it is prioritized against other items to which we don't assign the word "evidence". The paradox is resolved by understanding what we mean when we talk about qualia. Intuition claims that somehow we can address "real qualia" and that they are a challenge for conceptual thinking, but actually when we reason about qualia then only on a conceptual basis. Doesn't matter where it came from. The mind is like a computer, it has access only to ideas and performs its if/then operations. When it asks chicken/egg questions then it's still just doing if/then operations. What kind of answer can you possibly receive? In what way can you possibly make sense of the answer? What tools are you using to figure these things out? Doesn't matter how you spin it, it's still just if/then operations playing themselves out. If you disagree then you contradict yourself. Yeah.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 19, 2013 13:23:03 GMT -5
Last year was version1. If/then is version2. Yes, it's conditional. I don't mean to make some tricky pointer to what is prior to the question. My reflections starts with the question, what is before it, if there is anything, is not within the scope of my reflection. No, I'm saying that within the context of my model ideas come first, and qualia are considered only in a conceptual sense. I further defended this view by claiming that actually "evidence" is not what we intuitively think it is. "Evidence" is simply an item to which we attach the word "evidence", so that it is prioritized against other items to which we don't assign the word "evidence". The paradox is resolved by understanding what we mean when we talk about qualia. Intuition claims that somehow we can address "real qualia" and that they are a challenge for conceptual thinking, but actually when we reason about qualia then only on a conceptual basis. Doesn't matter where it came from. The mind is like a computer, it has access only to ideas and performs its if/then operations. When it asks chicken/egg questions then it's still just doing if/then operations. What kind of answer can you possibly receive? In what way can you possibly make sense of the answer? What tools are you using to figure these things out? Doesn't matter how you spin it, it's still just if/then operations playing themselves out. If you disagree then you contradict yourself. Yeah. So there!
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Oct 19, 2013 13:38:12 GMT -5
Where?
|
|