creativesoul

Not interested.

Are you implying the need for omniscience? :worry: What does that have to do with our knowing that conscious experience of seeing red cups requires re...

It has to do with the claim that we do not know what connection biological machinery has to conscious experience of seeing red cups. We most certainly...

I'll get to your recent comments, but my replies require a bit of paving, so... Do you agree?

I found the extra "non" a bit amusing...

So what is the camera?

To quite the contrary, it's an overwhelmingly popular element in American culture to judge(devalue) another based upon one's own religious beliefs. Pr...

I know that the conscious experience of seeing red cups requires the capability of seeing red cups, and that all the evidence suggests that biological...

Do you agree that all conscious experience of seeing red cups includes red cups?

To his credit. Why invoke "qualia" here? What does it add that "footage" lacks?

How so?

Thanks, but from my vantage point it seems like some language use just whirls people so far away from red cups that the language itself is no longer c...

It has everything to do with the privacy aspect of conscious experience that we've been touching upon. Earlier, with me, you invoked the idea that bec...

The involuntary biological response.

Making the same sound as "shark" is not equivalent to correct use of the term. Parrots may make the sound, but correct word use requires a bit more.

Earlier you spoke of not being able to take a screenshot of another individual's sight. Isaac is offering you as close a proximity of that as we can g...

Chalmers and Nagel have their own problems... Dennett has his own as well... not sure about the rest. They all three have the same problem though... T...

Similar, I suppose. I find no need for qualia though, whereas you seem to want to preserve it. So, something is different.

No, thank you. :blush:

Cool. So you agree with all of that?

Well, if you're very interested in pre-theoretical conscious experience, then you and I have shared interest. Our notion of what exactly counts as suc...

One presupposes purpose and intent(Morse code), and the other does not.

No problem, but... What do people call "red cups"? Red cups. See??? The experience of red cups includes red cups. Shorter. Clearer. Better.

You're more than welcome. Well, I'm not attempting to speak for either of them, for they are quite a bit more capable of explaining their own position...

Our verbal behaviour already matches despite known variations in biological machinery because those variations do not have any effect/affect upon the ...

In some ways...

Indeed. You taught me how you use it. What of mine?

That's why it's not a problem for someone(like me) to make both claims you're asking about. We can know something about what another is experiencing w...

It sets out what counts as pretheoretical conscious experience. But, since you've expressed no interest in that criterion, calling it a "strawman" bui...

All conscious experience of seeing red cups includes more than just red cups, ya know? :brow:

Neither, and I said as much from the very beginning. Curious that, huh?

"Dogmatic" may be a bit too much, depending upon the person.

Indeed.

It means that both Janus' seeing red cups, and my seeing red cups always always always includes red cups.

That's an equivocation.

I'd not care to guess why it's seems so important for others. It's odd to me.

I find it rather telling that it's never used when making things clear.

I meant exactly what I said. What - exactly - do each of us classify as a "red cup" if not red cups? I've no idea what seems so difficult about this f...

They are illusions and hallucinations of red cups seen in past. They are illusions and hallucinations, in part, because of the fact that there are no ...

Go back and read.

You're all over the place...

Say what you mean.

Oh, brother...

Well, the experiences are not identical if in one there is a red cup and in the other there is a drawing of a red cup.

You two seem to be imagining some sort of problem. Do you believe that I've somehow contradicted myself?

We all know what red cups look like. We know that each and every experience of seeing a red cup always involves seeing red cups. It only follows that ...

That's what I said, but taking it out of the context ignores the support that was given that you have since claimed was not. Your other questions have...

You first. What does the square named "rosewood" look like to you?

No, I did not. Quote the entire post please.

Not all by itself.