I'd like him to explain how this makes sense in light of what he said to me a couple months ago:
What Dan is implying is that red is a subjective experience, one that is an effect of a cause. In other words, the subjective experience of red is not identical to the electro-chemical activity which underpins it.Dan: As to qualia: where is "red" in your perspective?
A bunch of neural pathways and synapses that light
up when a person says they see "red" isn't "red" -
is it? It's a bunch of brain activity that we associate
with the subjective experience of "red".
Isaac: The only thing that I would add is that the brain activity
is dependent on the incoming sensory stimulation, so "red"
is the brain activity in response to wavelengths of visible
light of a certain wavelength.
Dan: There you go, you're already branching out making "red" more
than just the firing of neural paths and synapses. This is what
I'm saying ultimately becomes arbitrary (which is fine for scientific work,
but not so great for philosophical inquiry). It's also why I'm saying
these things are not "red". What is "red" is the subjective experience of "red". A=A
What does this have to do with Dan's comments on birth?
When Dan says that he wasn't born, he is basically implying that his subjective experience of self is identical to the causes which create his subjective sense of self.
Do you guys see the corner Dan has painted himself into?
The QRS are masters of word games. They indulge in a feeling of 'doing something great' by merely playing around with definitions. Occasionally they blatantly contradict themselves, as is obvious above.
