You didn't think that dreams were experienced, only remembered. Well, I've had lucid dreams a few times. They are conscious experiences as much as perception is. — Marchesk
Consciousness, frustration, and anxiety are all mental experiences. — T Clark
Which is not one I would make. Why wouldn't they be conscious?
Part of the problem here is that experience can mean behavior as well as consciousness, and I would rather restrict experience to consciousness, otherwise it's easy to slip between the two, resulting in arguing past one another in these debates. — Marchesk
I'm wondering why all your mental experiences aren't just being conscious? Feelings included. Are we using different terms? By consciousness, do you mean awareness of what you're experiencing, and that inner dialog is what makes us aware? — Marchesk
So the point of all this disagreement is the hard(er) problem. If we learn about our consciousness the same way we do other people, then it might not be a problem. — Marchesk
But I think our own case is special, because we experience our conscious states, and can only infer them about other people. — Marchesk
I've never gotten all this talk about the hard problem. Now that I've heard about the harder problem, I don't get it either. Nothing here seems particularly difficult to me. — T Clark
I don't know that I can agree with that. How would they functionally be different for such a simple case? You're saying that there can never be an exact duplicate function across different physical subtrates. — Marchesk
So, what would make one a nominalist, at least in the more common sense of the term, is that one doesn't believe that any numerically distinct things can be identical. — Terrapin Station
So Data wouldn't present a problem to you, because he could tell you he was conscious, and back that up with convincing behavior? — Marchesk
So all it would take to disprove nominalism is to find a numerically distinct thing that was identical for some property or function? — Marchesk
A nominalist isn't going to take any numerically distinct things as identical to each other, a fortiori because we believe that the idea of this is incoherent . — Terrapin Station
So all it would take to disprove nominalism is to find a numerically distinct thing that was identical for some property or function? — Marchesk
So Data wouldn't present a problem to you, because he could tell you he was conscious, and back that up with convincing behavior? — Marchesk
Things can have identical properties, such as color, under nominalism, just not the same instances of that color? — DingoJones
But that's begging the question. — Marchesk
How do we know two numerically distinct things can't be identical in some manner that would contradict nominalism? — Marchesk
We have tomatoe 1 and tomato 2. If they both have exactly the same color, then isn't that an identical property that nominalism says can't exist? — Marchesk
Are they numerically distinct instances of redness? — Terrapin Station
Things can have identical properties, such as color, under nominalism, — DingoJones
Not if they reflect exactly the same wavelength of light. — Marchesk
So the same light reflects off of two numerically distinct tomatoes? — Terrapin Station
I don't see how that works. How can nominalism have the same instances of color if everything is particular? — Marchesk
I'm asking you about the light. You used that as a determiner. — Terrapin Station
You're asking me whether the same photons bounce off different surfaces? — Marchesk
The photon wouldn't be numerically distinct (including numerically distinct temporal instances) but we'd somehow be able to point the the photon bouncing off of numerically distinct tomatoes? — Terrapin Station
There might be a way to emit and capture the same photons in a very controlled setting, while bouncing them off two surfaces made to have the reflect the same wavelength. — Marchesk
That seems really incoherent. — Terrapin Station
Typically nominalism does not allow identical properties in numerically distinct things. — Terrapin Station
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.