> Yes, but we know how the eye works, and we know what cells are rtecptive to what colors. We can compare only through agreement
> or disagreement of what we see. Regardless - we can be sure that if I paint a sign red, you will also see it that way because
> the cells in your eyes will respond to certain frequencies in the same way mine will. Somewhere along the line, the data from
> your eyes to your consciousness will get corrupted - but in most cases the corruption will fall into the "insignifigant"
> catagory.
>
We agree, except for the connotation-laden description "corrupted."
How about the more 'politically correct' "processed differently?"
Also, Most isn't All, and Similar isn't Identical. We're all people, true;
we're still spatiotemporally, historically and genetically different
(although similar) people.
> I do agree that absolute verification that we see the same thing is not possible with my current understanding.
>
> Bill Roh
>
> Joe E. Dees wrote:
>
> > Date sent: Thu, 08 Oct 1998 09:20:48 -0400
> > From: Bill Roh <sodom@ma.ultranet.com>
> > To: virus@lucifer.com
> > Subject: Re: virus: If you're watchin' IT ya' ain't a part of IT (was: David's top 10 (here and now))
> > Send reply to: virus@lucifer.com
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Joe E. Dees wrote: But Bill, our genetic makeup and environmental (developmental)
> > >
> > > > influences have caused us all to be wired, though similarly, not the
> > > > same (Peter ain't Paul). The hardware and software are individual
> > > > to each person, and possess individual differences. Furthermore,
> > > > this structure is dynamic, not static, and changes throughout life,
> > > > partially due to aging as that is genetically manifested, and partially
> > > > due to the effects of each new experience upon the brain. The
> > > > physical substrate of subjective experience is in each case unique
> > > > to the individual and his/her existing situation; thus how can anyone
> > > > maintain that the experiences themselves are not themselves equally
> > > > unique?
> > >
> > >
> > >> > > I am not suggesting that they are ot unique, I am suggesting that they are mush more alike than not alike. A good
> > > example for me would be musical instruments. All acoustical instruments, no matter how well tuned or made, sound a
> > > little different. No two Pianos sound the same, an upright and grand sound quite different from one another, but the
> > > basics are still the same, and the sound is always identifiable. Even two coins minted together are not exactly alike.
> > >> > > Humans are the same, my neurotransmitters work the same as yours, usually for similar reasons, I am build pretty close
> > > to the same as you or anyone else. My experiences and such are different not because I am physically that much
> > > different, but because my time and location are always different than anyone else's. My feeling that are outside of my
> > > control - love, jealousy, possessiveness, joy, fear, have similar triggers as every other person on the planet, men more
> > > so than women. Studies regarding the "smile" for instance, show that it is universal in humanity, along with
> > > reproduction, territorial males, and more things than I can think of.
> > >
> > > a few statements to clarify:
> > >> > > Each person is unique among people, but in the whole of things, we are interchangeable and similar in every way
> > > Being similar in nature does not "devalue" existence/experience or pleasure from life - its just an observation.
> > > There is simply an amount of variation in humanity that either functions, or does not - if not, Tim's Nazi pals, take
> > > care of it for us. If so, they are probably not all that different from us.
> > >
> > > Bill Roh
> > >
> > But it is also true that neither one of us knows what the other's
> > experience of the color red or the sound of middle C are. We only
> > know that they refer to the same things because we can point to
> > them for each other in a common world. They are certain
> > frequencies scientifically; experiential qualia are horses of a
> > different choler.
>
>