Still the color argument is pretty strong. What if the energy emitted/reflected by the universe was totally in the non visible light spectrum. No one would see anything. To a blind person this is a normality, and so perhaps a person who is blind would have a better feel for what this means, but to the rest of us, color is so ingrained as "color is reality" it's hard to imagine.
Now also realize that we touch absolutely nothing. And yet we perceive solid things, as if they were solid. But again they are not. We just feel electro-magnetic force.
Following with QC, there isn't really anything such as particles.. the world is just fields of various types. Only when we go and look at the fields do we see particles, but they are just excitations in the fields.
I sometimes walk around and think what if i shut off all the perceptions that i know are only in my body/head, and thought about what was left. There really wouldn't be anything at all what we think there is.
I'm not concluding that this guy is right or wrong, but I think we have an almost impossibility in comprehending that this could actually be the case. Given that we are 90% fooled, why couldn't we be 100% fooled?
You still have to wonder why the brain created color to differentiate wavelengths. If we could not see and were speculating on how you could discern wavelengths, maybe you would guess that there would be some sort of frequency pattern that differentiated. But no... color? What is color, really? I'm not sure i even know the answer to that.
What would it be like to touch "something", rather than mere electro-magnetic forces? Isn't this just a game of words? When we touch electro-magnetic forces, we are in fact touching solid things.
Imagine you had a force field generation machine, that could produce fields in any size, shape, density, etc.
If you made a force field in a tubular shape about 8 inches long, with a smooth rubber tactile force, that was squishable, but still somewhat firm, .. would it be a banana? If you moved that force field close to your mouth would it provide sustenance (whatever that means)?
Of course you would be touching a real thing. What else could you touch?
However, on closer inspection (such as taking a bite) you would be able to tell that it wasn't a banana: the theory that the object is a banana is falsifiable. If, on the other hand, the machine can produce a simulated banana that is indistinguishable from a real one in all respects, then we can say that the object _is_ a banana.
Your point can be generalized to Descartes' evil demon, or the simulation argument. Imagine a machine that can provide arbitrary sensory inputs to the brain by simulating your body as well as the universe it inhabits.
The simulator has complete control over all reality, so that all perceptions are illusions; there is no "physical" reality, only a simulated one.
To me, this is a reduction to absurdity. If a simulated universe is indistinguishable from a real one, then we (as inhabitants of the simulated universe) should say that it is a real universe, as the simulation theory is unfalsifiable.
(If we discovered that we are in fact living inside a simulation because the simulation code was buggy and we hacked it from inside, then a Simuluation Argument Believer could just say that the "real" universe is also just another level of the simulation. This is why the _metaphysical_ Simulation Argument is unfalsifiable.)
Similarly, if a machine can produce a perfect copy of a real banana, then the copy is also actually a banana. And if a banana feels solid, then it actually is a solid object, and we aren't touching "nothing". It is irrelevant whether the feeling is produced by electromagnetic forces, or some special Platonic "solid" surface that doesn't actually exist.
Now also realize that we touch absolutely nothing. And yet we perceive solid things, as if they were solid. But again they are not. We just feel electro-magnetic force.
Following with QC, there isn't really anything such as particles.. the world is just fields of various types. Only when we go and look at the fields do we see particles, but they are just excitations in the fields.
I sometimes walk around and think what if i shut off all the perceptions that i know are only in my body/head, and thought about what was left. There really wouldn't be anything at all what we think there is.
I'm not concluding that this guy is right or wrong, but I think we have an almost impossibility in comprehending that this could actually be the case. Given that we are 90% fooled, why couldn't we be 100% fooled?