Even thermostats respond differentially, categorize. — plaque flag

Thermostats don't seek and avoid. Any categorizing involved with a thermostat is done by the engineers who produce the design. Categorizing is a distinguishing of different types. A thermostat is designed to work within the parameters of one type.

@plaque flag @180 Proof@Wayfarer

Hey, I lost the thread of this thread I think.. So we are discussing various things. I see the word tautology and another one contradiction, etc.

So I think we all know what it is to sense something. It is wrapped up with our very awareness. There are people- @apokrisis comes to mind, that I think believe that sensation is a matter of learning (distinguishing one thing from another) and here I think is where
comes into play. We know blue because it's not blue, etc. But I think this just skips over the actual part we are interested in. It is saying we know the sensation of blue because we know we can distinguish it from not blue. Let's say a baby's rods and cones aren't developed enough to "see blue", that doesn't get us any closer to understanding how it is that when the rods and cones are developed enough "see blue" happens. By abstracting it to simply "it makes a distinction" we are simply adding in a process as the phenomenon and calling it good. Adding more computation does not necessarily equal the fact of sensation itself.

Adding more computation does not necessarily equal the fact of sensation itself. — schopenhauer1

That's just it.

*******************************
We want to say something that can't be said. Aconceptual or subconceptual thereness of the bloody glowing redness of the rose. Or simply the scream and nausea of there being a here here in the worst placed. It's as if a chandelier of concepts was dipped in vat of nectar.

It's the feeling of hot water in the bath tub after hours of being sweaty outside. Not inferences and differential response but the ineffable Feeling.
*******************************

Imagine the above was written by a bot asked to explain what it was missing out on. Maybe I'm a Darwinian bot that only thinks I know what I'm talking about.

That's just it.

*******************************
We want to say something that can't be said. Aconceptual or subconceptual thereness of the bloody glowing redness of the rose. Or simply the scream and nausea of there being a here here in the worst placed. It's as if a chandelier of concepts was dipped in vat of nectar.

It's the feeling of hot water in the bath tub after hours of being sweaty outside. Not inferences and differential response but the ineffable Feeling.
*******************************

Imagine the above was written by a bot asked to explain what it was missing out on. Maybe I'm a Darwinian bot that only thinks I know what I'm talking about. — plaque flag

I don't think it's that slippery a concept. People make it so because it doesn't fit in their schema of how things are..
You see molecules, neurons, laws of the universe, thermodynamics, information. But none of it get at it. They are great for explaining p-zombies though.

What ends up happening is the dualists/panpsychists put into the equation "property" (of the universe like mass or strong force). The sensation of blue is that way because this phenomena carries with it thus property. But that has many of its own problems.

You have brute properties and computational p-zombies. Oh my.

You see molecules, neurons, laws of the universe, thermodynamics, information. But none of it get at it. They are great for explaining p-zombies though. — schopenhauer1

That's the problem, differentiating ourselves from p-zombies, so sure there is Something ---but this Something is Magically Private.

I use capitals to emphasize a kind of mysticism that resents being questioned. I can speak with the vulgar of sensations and feelings, but here I'm trying to think with those who question to the end.