"Office Hours" with onemorebrown 6

[@timang3138]

Hi Richard. If you held that type C is unstable and identities need explanation, would you still be inclined to endorse type B?

[@onemorebrown]

I think that is a type-A position and is one I am open to. When Mary gets out of the Black and White room and sees red, she acquires the phenomenal concept and then would be able to priori know the explanation. This is what I take my Maria thought experiment to show, namely that P --> Q is knowable a priori

[@timang3138]

Shombies are interesting and so is Maria. I hope you'll use both as often!

[@uninspired3583]

23:45 starting at the fundamental physics level is a bad idea for thinking about consiousness why is that? it seems to me that the fundamental physics level informs us about the pieces we have to work with. if someone wants to propose something utterly different, why should it be entertained?

[@onemorebrown]

Because consciousness is a psychological phenomenon so the right level to be theorizing at is the psychological/neurobiological level.

[@uninspired3583]

@onemorebrown i see. You're talking about theory building, I talked about a tool for criticism. Not the same exercise. Thank you