No. I'm denying that they're what we 'see'. They're part of 'seeing', they're not what we see. — Isaac

The spider sees its prey because its brain is receiving data representative of the prey.

The representation and the prey are distinct. This is basic biology.

The representation and the prey are distinct. This is basic biology. — Tate

Yep. But it sees the prey. Not the representation.

One has green as a property of some mental representation, the other as a property of the hidden state.

The former is without warrant. — Isaac

Then you still have to explain what you mean by one person seeing something as red and another person seeing that same thing as blue. Does each person have different hidden states?

Because it seems to me that when we say that one person sees something as red and another as blue that the words "red" and "blue" are referring to the particular qualities of their individual experiences. That's colour as everyone ordinarily understands it.

Yep. But it sees the prey. Not the representation. — Isaac

So we're straight that the representative data the spider has direct access to is not identical to hidden states, as you've been claiming.

:up:

Then you still have to explain what you mean by one person seeing something as red and another person seeing that same thing as blue. Does each person have different hidden states? — Michael

Same hidden state causes one person to respond in the way we call 'seeing blue' and another person to respond in the way we call 'seeing red'. It is an intrinsic property of the hidden state that it causes this multiple response. The colour of the hidden state is either red (and person B is wrong), or blue (and person A is wrong), or some new colour which causes this odd split reaction which we'd need a new word for. As I say, we've not encountered such hidden states in any quantity. The vast majority cause the same response.

the representative data the spider has direct access to is not identical to hidden states, as you've been claiming. — Tate

Where have I claimed anything like that?

Where have I claimed anything like that? — Isaac

I must have been mistaken. You wouldn't say something so ridiculous.

Same hidden state causes one person to respond in the way we call 'seeing blue' and another person to respond in the way we call 'seeing red'. — Isaac

Responding in the way called "seeing blue" is just seeing blue, and responding in the way called "seeing red" is just seeing red. We have experiences, and we use words to refer to properties of these experiences. Colour, texture, pleasure, pain, and so on.

If you want to use the words "red" and "blue" to refer to some hidden state then you're welcome to do so, but it's wrong to deny that in normal conversation they refer to something else; something that isn't hidden but instead is immediately apparent.

Because it seems to me that when we say that one person sees something as red and another as blue that the words "red" and "blue" are referring to the particular qualities of their individual experiences. That's colour as everyone ordinarily understands it. — Michael

How isn't it a Cartesian theatre understanding?

Responding in the way called "seeing blue" is just seeing blue — Michael

Yes. Blue being the name given to the property we're seeing. The property of the external hidden state.

We have experiences, and we use words to refer to properties of these experiences. Colour, texture, pleasure, pain, and so on. — Michael

But we clearly aren't referring to the properties of the experience. When I say "the post box is red" I'm clearly referring to the post box. The grammar could not be more clear.

it's wrong to deny that in normal conversation they refer to something else; something that isn't hidden but instead is immediately apparent. — Michael

Again, 'hidden' here refers to the network location of the data node relative to the Markov boundary. It doesn't mean 'not apparent'.

Blue being the name given to the property we're seeing. The property of the external hidden state. — Isaac

But people see different things despite the same external hidden state, e.g some a white and gold dress and some a black and blue dress. Therefore it’s not the external hidden state they see.

But we clearly aren't referring to the properties of the experience. When I say "the post box is red" I'm clearly referring to the post box. The grammar could not be more clear. — Isaac

And as I have previously said, the postbox isn’t an external hidden state either.

The grammar could not be more clear. — Isaac

I didn’t realise that English grammar dictates/reveals the (meta-)physics of perception.

But people see different things despite the same external hidden state, e.g some a white and gold dress and some a black and blue dress. Therefore it’s not the external hidden state they see. — Michael

Why? Why must the property of the external state we're labelling as 'green' be such that it causes the same response in all people at all times?

the postbox isn’t an external hidden state either. — Michael

Then when I say "I'll meet you by the postbox" I'm expecting you to get into my mind and wait next to my mental representation?

I didn’t realise that English grammar dictates/reveals the (meta-)physics of perception. — Michael

It reveals reference.

Why? Why must the property of the external state we're labelling as 'green' be such that it causes the same response in all people at all times? — Isaac

I'm not saying that it must. I'm saying that if two people are seeing different things (one a black and blue dress, the other a white and gold dress) then they are not seeing the external state because the external state is the same for both of them. It doesn't make sense to say that they are seeing the same external state but also seeing different things. You have to pick one.

Then when I say "I'll meet you by the postbox" I'm expecting you to get into my mind and wait next to my mental representation? — Isaac

No. You're expecting to meet them by the postbox. And "meeting someone by the postbox" isn't an external hidden state.

I'm saying that if two people are seeing different things (one a black and blue dress, the other a white and gold dress) then they are not seeing the external state — Michael

Why not? I don't understand why you're invoking this rule that a hidden state has to have the same effect on all people at all times. Where does that rule come from?

And "meeting someone by the postbox" isn't an external hidden state. — Michael

Is anything?

Why not? I don't understand why you're invoking this rule that a hidden state has to have the same effect on all people at all times. Where does that rule come from? — Isaac

I'm not saying that it has to. I'm saying:

1. Some hidden state X causes person A to see a white and gold dress and person B to see a black and blue dress.
2. A white and gold dress isn't a black and blue dress
3. Therefore, person A isn't seeing the same thing as person B
4. Therefore, person A and/or person B isn't seeing hidden state X
5. Therefore, the white and gold dress and/or the black and blue dress isn't hidden state X

A white and gold dress isn't a black and blue dress — Michael

Why not?

Why not? — Isaac

Because neither white nor gold is black or blue. They are different colours.

Because neither white nor gold is black or blue. They are different colours. — Michael

But why can't a dress be two different colours at the same time?

But why can't a dress be two different colours at the same time? — Isaac

Maybe it can, but in this scenario it isn't. Neither person A nor person B sees a white and gold and black and blue dress. Person A only sees a white and gold dress. Person B only sees a black and blue dress.

Wouldn't it be clearer to change the verbiage somewhat?

^{(pardon my poor art)}

The two occurrences aren't the same, they can't be, though there's just the one Cup (the perceived).
Whatever takes place in You and Me (the perceptions) are parts of the respective occurrences.
If I were color blind, then I might report a different color than You (the perceptions).

On a different though related note, this is just what "the-swimmer-in-the-water" looks like (refraction → the perception):



Doesn't mean that swimmer's head is separated from the rest of their body (the perceived).

The two occurrences aren't the same, they can't be, though there's just the one Cup (the perceived). — jorndoe

Maybe there are actually two cups, one for you and one for me, and we communicate telepathically about our individual scenes.

Point is: watch out for question begging.

Maybe there are actually two cups, one for you and one for me, and we communicate telepathically about our individual scenes. — Tate

:D (you're just dreaming that you're reading posts on a forum)

Point is: watch out for question begging. — Tate

There are no proofs here. Just switching to other (descriptive) verbiage.

Maybe it can, but in this scenario it isn't. Neither person A nor person B sees a white and gold and black and blue dress. Person A only sees a white and gold dress. Person B only sees a black and blue dress. — Michael

Right. But how does that make it that the dress must be one or the other?

Maybe there are actually two cups, one for you and one for me, and we communicate telepathically about our individual scenes.
— Tate

:D (you're just dreaming that you're reading posts on a forum) — jorndoe

Could be.

Point is: watch out for question begging.
— Tate

There are no proofs here. Just switching to other (descriptive) verbiage. — jorndoe

I think you are trying get leverage from aspects of your worldview. All that allows you to do is comment on your worldview.

I think you are trying get leverage from aspects of your worldview. All that allows you to do is comment on your worldview. — Tate

You want to talk about me instead...? :roll: Suggest posting about the comment.

Right. But how does that make it that the dress must be one or the other? — Isaac

A dress can be red and blue. Or it can just be red. Or it can just be blue. Or it can be some other colour or combination of colours.

In this scenario neither person sees a red and blue dress. One person sees a red dress, the other a blue dress. A red dress isn't a blue dress. The fact that some other dress can be both red and blue is irrelevant.

If a dress is both red and blue, viewers will see a purple dress. (human viewers, anyway).

You want to talk about me instead...? :roll: Suggest posting about the comment. — jorndoe

Sorry. I might have failed to get your point. :grimace: I'll try again later.

A red dress isn't a blue dress. — Michael

So you keep saying, but you've not given any account of why a dress cannot be both a red dress and a blue dress.