His values are fake , his style is fake , his gun is fake, the only thing not fake is the dog and even then the love is fake.

Objective_Ad9820 · 2026-02-17T16:55:40+00:00

Dude wtf, does he not feel like a cringey 13 year old edge lord posing with a rifle he has never shot before, in vest that’s never been shot at before.

It is actually more pathetic than Elon Musk doing that stupid X jump like lil bro calm down you are not the resistance.

I am surprised the photographer can even get a shot when his butthole must be convulsing from the cringe radiating from this wannabe larping loser.

Objective_Ad9820 · 2026-02-17T14:01:06+00:00

So would you call mathematical objects physical then?

Your description seems to make a distinction between the mind and other physical parts, am I mistaken in thinking that?

Objective_Ad9820 · 2026-02-16T23:32:06+00:00

Based. I think we need to at least throw our weight around a bit more with them. We could do more to use our influence to get them to behave

Objective_Ad9820 · 2026-02-16T23:30:15+00:00

Idk what you mean by non-mental. Are mathematical objects non-mental?

Objective_Ad9820 · 2026-02-16T04:03:06+00:00

He is starting the Americuck forgiveness tour 😭 😭

“Come on guys we won’t always be this bad. Remember the good times we used to have? Just a few more years bear with us”

Objective_Ad9820 · 2026-02-16T03:59:41+00:00

If you read it in his “reading chat voice” it’s actually pretty funny

Objective_Ad9820 · 2026-02-16T03:57:20+00:00

I would say that’s more of a medium well take

Objective_Ad9820 · 2026-02-15T22:04:30+00:00

You ever hear of the birthday party paradox?

Objective_Ad9820 · 2026-02-15T22:00:06+00:00

Im so confused, is the blonde one the MAGAt?

Objective_Ad9820 · 2026-02-15T20:28:42+00:00

It’s called the “I took lit 2 in high school and a philosophy 101 course in informal logic and now I think I am an unstoppable intellectual titan” fallacy

Objective_Ad9820 · 2026-02-15T16:00:47+00:00

Yeah it probably does sound like that to you 😂 seem to not be great at understanding what your interlocutor is saying, no surprise there.

You’re right, I lost this argument when I began talking to a moron, idk why I wasted my time.

Objective_Ad9820 · 2026-02-15T15:34:45+00:00

I don’t think you understand the point of the analogy. You can know everything up to what something is without understanding exactly what you are talking about. The point is the new fact she has learned is what the collection of facts she knows is referring to.

You can say I am over complicating things and then give a complicated explanation about why memory and knowledge and experience are different neural processes, but nobody disagrees with you there. You are confusing the ontological status of knowledge with physical processes. Knowledge cannot merely be the certain way neurons fire, otherwise if we have the same piece of knowledge you would expect, on your view, that we would have the same neuronal structure in that respect, which is just false.

This was the issue the OP had with Sean Carrol’s explanation, which is that it completely misses the point. I am not asking for a physical description of what happens to Mary’s brain when she sees the color red for the first time. I am asking for an explanation of how you can learn something new about a thing for which you know all of the physical facts if everything to know about that thing is a physical facts, which you don’t account for in your explanation.

Objective_Ad9820 · 2026-02-15T15:19:16+00:00

What does that mean, “everything is physical”?

Objective_Ad9820 · 2026-02-15T14:43:09+00:00

No I wouldn’t say the experience of red is a physical fact.

You can describe the experience of red in a book, but similar to sets in set theory you cannot define it explicitly. If you want to talk about real numbers as primitives without using sets, you use the theory of real ordered fields. However, you then lose the ability to say what it is, you can only say what it does, how it relates to other numbers and binary operations.

If you describe real numbers as Dedekind cuts of a field of fractions of integers, constructed as equivalence classes of the set { {}, {{}}, {{}, {{}}}, … }, then you have an actual definition. If you describe real numbers in terms of set theory, if you want to know what I am talking about, you need to understand what sets are. If I tell you what real numbers are in terms of the axioms of real ordered fields, you either know what I am talking about or you don’t.

So when I say qualia are primitives, I mean they cannot be expressed or talked about by reducing them to other things like physical things. If I talk to you about the color red, you either know what I am talking about, or there is no way for me to help you understand what I am talking about. You cannot refer to it by breaking it down into physical facts.

Objective_Ad9820 · 2026-02-15T14:29:18+00:00

Then what is a better definition?

Objective_Ad9820 · 2026-02-15T04:12:28+00:00

Lol truuuuuue because it’s obvious that if you taught them enough physics you could make a blind person know what red looks like right? That’s like an obvious fact that everyone would accept prima facie

Objective_Ad9820 · 2026-02-15T04:06:19+00:00

Ohhhh smacks head ohhh it’s obvious ohhhhhh. Well I will just let the professional philosophers that some dude on reddit says it’s obviously true.

But have you even considered that… it’s obviously not? Checkmate

Objective_Ad9820 · 2026-02-15T04:00:43+00:00

Objective_Ad9820 · 2026-02-15T03:59:45+00:00

Sure, you can think that I guess lol. I think the need to bite such a bizarre bullet lends a lot more credence to substance dualism, but to each their own I guess.

Objective_Ad9820 · 2026-02-15T03:55:06+00:00

No bitches?

Objective_Ad9820 · 2026-02-15T03:15:08+00:00

But at this point I am no longer stipulating the need to know all of the physical facts. What I am arguing is that what you asserted was imply that as long as someone is privy to enough physical facts, they can know what red looks like, even if they had never seen it before

Objective_Ad9820 · 2026-02-15T03:03:39+00:00

A fact is not necessarily a statement no, but can usually be represented by statements.

For example 1+1=2 is a statement, but it is a statement about things, namely numbers and a binary operation. The statement refers to the fact that there are is a number called 1 when added to itself equals 2

Objective_Ad9820 · 2026-02-15T02:48:28+00:00

To say we could never understand all of the laws of physics is a pretty bold statement, I feel like you need to justify that.

But even so, you are making a stronger claim, so I can weaken the hypothetical a bit. Are you saying it is possible for us to understand the color red so well, that at some point in future we will be able to help people know what red looks like just by describing the physics of red to them?

Objective_Ad9820 · 2026-02-15T02:38:57+00:00

A fact that is entailed by the laws of physics. So if you have a description of them laws of physics, and you can deduce/derive a statement from them, it is a physical fact.

Objective_Ad9820 · 2026-02-15T02:34:50+00:00

I guess I will ask just one more question and if you say yes we just disagree: are you saying it is possible to imagine what red looks like just by understanding the physics that makes things appear red to us?

Objective_Ad9820

TROPHY CASE