Stop believing in qualia

That you haven't experienced the colour until you've actually seen it... Learning about reductive shit like its wavelength is just autism, not experience.

That just seems trivially true, though, and not particularly helpful. From what I've read the thought experiment is supposed to disprove purely physical theories of the brain- how does it do that? How is seeing colour not a physical experience? Where do qualia come in?

color is a physical, objective phenomenon. The experience of seeing color is entirely subjective. You cant explain what Blue looks like except "its blue". You can describe all the physical elements that make up blue (i.e. Wavelengths, etc.). But that doesnt describe what Blue looks like. You have only see it to know what that is. And even then, you cant even share that experience with others who have also seen Blue (le how do i know my blue is your blue).

>The experience of seeing color is entirely subjective.
Another user. I don't agree.
Unless there are people who's senses cannot see blue, I don't see how it can be subjective.

Your conception of the color blue as in 'seeing the color blue' is based entirely on your experience in seeing the color blue. Its not about whether you actually see another blue than your friend, but the fact that this understanding is based on no logic or deduction as to what seeing color is like. You cant deduce that. A person born blind cant reason the experience of seeing color. We cant talk about your experience in seeing color either. We can talk about color 'objectively' through addressing its physical properties, but not your experience in seeing in it (its intensity, its significance, its influence, etc. on your perception of it or things).

there's no logical entailment from any physical fact to what we actually experience

Epistemically, it is subjective. Ever heard of colorblind people? Keep in mind that subjective doesn't mean arbitrary.

Analytic philosophy is so dumb

When philosophers talk about subjective, what exactly do they mean?

According to neuroscience you are wrong and is correct. The perception of color is entirely a construct of the brain. The only thing that can be said objectively about color is measuring wavelengths of light but that speaks nothing to the actual perceived quality of a particular color/wavelength of light. We could both look at a red car and see something totally different without knowing it and still refer to it as "red" because we came to associate the word with the image.

Define subjective first or we are talking beside each other

>We could both look at a red car and see something totally different without knowing it and still refer to it as "red" because we came to associate the word with the image.

That's a rather stupid proposition. What more can be said of colors other than that to which they are associated to

When analytics talk about subjective or objective usually they refer to the epistemic nature of the object of their inquiry.

>the epistemic nature of the object of their inquiry
In simple English?

Whether "something" is epistemically subjective or not aka if it depends on the subject.
For example an exact science like physics it's an epistemically objective account (indipendent of subject) of a epistemically objective phenomenon.
You being angry at something is an epistemically subjective phenomenon.
Me describing you being angry at something is an epistemically objective account of an epistemically subjective phenomenon.

That's the point dingus, it's impossible to know someone else's qualia

Thank you for taking the time to explain and not taking it the wrong way

But I'm saying there is no conceivable point at which a divergence of secondary sensory experience could possibly have a functional difference to all experience being the same.
Stop using the word quaia by the way. Its retarded

Theres generally two meanings:

Subjective as in restricted to immediate experience which relies on a personal use of linguistic and conceptual modes (i.e. "Getting my dick suck feels good").

The other is a semi-conscious evalution based on arbitrary criterions that differ from person to person. (I.e. This movie is good).

>science is objective
Nope. Fuck off, retard.

Why do you always have to ruin threads with your autismo?

HAHAHAHHA ANYBODY WHO DOESNT JUST LE SUCK LE SCIENCEMAN LE DICK LE SUCK LE DICK IS LE AUTISM XXDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

lol

But how do you get from the thought experiment to that position? As I understand it
>Mary has theoretical knowledge of colours
>she has never seen the colour red, ie light rays of that wavelength have never entered her eyes
>lightwaves of that wavelength enter her eyes
>she has a new experience
None of the above seems incompatible with a purely physical explanation to me- it's just obvious that experiencing something is not the same as having theoretical knowledge of it. Now we have an extra claim:
>her experience of red is subjective and could be entirely different from someone else's
...which may well be true, but I don't see how it follows from the thought experiment.

Psychosis

Physics is just a good enough description of the world. Everything in it can be boiled down to subjective choices. We even know that the current physics model is wrong, yet everyone is sucking science dick as if it were a new God. It's ok to admit that scientists don't know anything, that they're just trying random shit and hoping that it works good enough.

t. physicist

I blame Quine for the "physics is the only thing there is" meme

Even the measurement of wavelength is witnessed by a subject. There is no way in which you can prove that the outside world exists outside of your own mind. Every description of the world that you create is subjective since you're the one creating the descriptions. You cannot touch the real.

Wavelength is a man made idea. There is no way of knowing if wavelength really exists in nature. It's only used because it works well enough.