A Really Good Discussion of the Zombie Argument

[Fliption]

What is conceivable according to Chalmers could just be nonsense.

Could be. I'm just clarifying what his meaning is so that this can be decided intelligently.

I "seem to think" Chalmers' argument is inconsistent with facts about reality. But who knows, maybe Chalmers is right and reality is wrong.

And my clarification was that the zombie exercise has much less to say about reality as it does our knowledge of it. I was trying to explain that this was the main point of the exercise. It's easier to claim it as nonsense when you don't understand it. I had the same compulsion you do until I understood it.

A zombie is just like an empty box filled with lots of things. You look outside and the box seems full; you look inside and the box is empty. The analogy is perfect.

What sorts of things is a zombie full of?

I don't know what you are talking about. When you explain to me what you mean by "qualia" and why you are so sure cameras and microphones don't have it, then I'll give you my explanation.

I don't understand how you can claim that zombies are not conceivable when you don't know what qualia is. How can you possibly make a determination about the conceivability of a being with no qualia if you don't know what it is that is being referred to by qualia?

And cameras and microphones having qualia is not really relevant. I say fine. Let's assume that cameras and microphones do have qualia. Now explain to me why it is inconceivable that they could not have an existence without qualia. Zombie cameras aren't conceivable?

 

[confutatis]

It's easier to claim it as nonsense when you don't understand it.

So what?

I don't understand how you can claim that zombies are not conceivable when you don't know what qualia is.

It's not that simple. To the best of my understanding, "qualia" is perfectly equivalent with "nothing". So a zombie is a person who has everything you and I have, except "nothing". And that is nonsense.

How can you possibly make a determination about the conceivability of a being with no qualia if you don't know what it is that is being referred to by qualia?

I can conceive of a being who's only different from me because I have "nothing" and he doesn't. I just don't see what's the use of such an exercise.

And cameras and microphones having qualia is not really relevant.

Actually, even people having "qualia" is not really relevant. You don't need to know if other people have "qualia" to know that they are conscious. You don't need to know that camcorders don't have "qualia" to know that they are unconscious.

Let's assume that cameras and microphones do have qualia. Now explain to me why it is inconceivable that they could not have an existence without qualia. Zombie cameras aren't conceivable?

It's not conceivable that two things which have everything in common except "nothing" could possibly be different. That's the bit you don't get.

 

[Fliption]

It's not conceivable that two things which have everything in common except "nothing" could possibly be different. That's the bit you don't get.

Ok, then you don't have an issue with the zombie argument. You have an issue with the hard problem itself. As Hypnagogue said in one of his last posts, if you don't believe in subjective experience to begin with then you already think we are zombies and there's nothing to talk about. The zombie argument isn't designed to convince you there is something that needs explaining. If you don't see that before then you won't see it after. I'd say this thread isn't for people like you.

I do "get it". I just don't agree with you.

 

[confutatis]

Ok, then you don't have an issue with the zombie argument. You have an issue with the hard problem itself.

I can't remember how many times I said I think this hard problem is nonsense - there is no hard problem.

As Hypnagogue said in one of his last posts, if you don't believe in subjective experience to begin with then you already think we are zombies and there's nothing to talk about.

I don't think we are zombies!

The zombie argument isn't designed to convince you there is something that needs explaining.

The zombie argument is designed to convince people of whatever it is they are already sure about. Like yourself. You are sure you have "qualia"; no argument can possibly convince you that the definition of "qualia" is nonsense. The hard problem is the problem of convincing a stubborn person that "qualia" is nonsense. Come to think of it, it's really a hard problem.

If you don't see that before then you won't see it after. I'd say this thread isn't for people like you.

How old are you anyway? From stuff like that, I'd give you no more than sixteen. A brilliant teenager, but still a teenager.

 

[Fliption]

I can't remember how many times I said I think this hard problem is nonsense - there is no hard problem.

Yes I know you've said this. All I'm saying is that it's very difficult for you to enter into an argument of whether a car is red or green if you don't believe in cars.

I don't think we are zombies!

If you think qualia is nonsense then we are zombies since they are defined as beings with no qualia.

The zombie argument is designed to convince people of whatever it is they are already sure about. Like yourself. You are sure you have "qualia"; no argument can possibly convince you that the definition of "qualia" is nonsense. The hard problem is the problem of convincing a stubborn person that "qualia" is nonsense. Come to think of it, it's really a hard problem.

No I don't think this is what it's designed to do at all. It is not designed to convince anyone of qualia. That's what I was saying in my last post. It is designed to illustrate the epistemic problem that exists regarding the explanation for qualia. The qualia is a given. So if someone doesn't believe in qualia then a discussion of the zombie argument is meaningless to them. This is all I meant when I suggested that this discussion wasn't for people like you. It is a meaningless topic so why discuss it?

How old are you anyway? From stuff like that, I'd give you no more than sixteen. A brilliant teenager, but still a teenager.

I'm being insulted now? I'm not real sure why unless you've misinterpreted something I said. I was only implying that this discussion is meaningless to someone who doesn't believe in qualia. The car analogy I used above is the perfect example.

BTW, I'm no where near 16.

 

[confutatis]

If you think qualia is nonsense then we are zombies since they are defined as beings with no qualia.

This is also nonsense.

It is designed to illustrate the epistemic problem that exists regarding the explanation for qualia.

There is no epistemic problem. "Qualia" can't be explained because it's defined as something which can't be explained.

 

[Fliption]

This is also nonsense.

Feel free to explain. I promise you that I can comprehend a coherent, reasoned point.

There is no epistemic problem. "Qualia" can't be explained because it's defined as something which can't be explained.

No kidding. All things that can't be explained are defined as something that can't be explained. But I think I know what you're trying to say. The only question to ask is "Is it defined properly?". And I say it is because I don't need to have an explainable word to understand my experiences. The philosophical problems that I see don't exists because of something people communicate to me. I see it for myself and I don't need language to comprehend it.

 

[confutatis]

All things that can't be explained are defined as something that can't be explained.

You mean we have explanations for everything that is not defined as unexplainable?

The only question to ask is "Is it defined properly?". And I say it is because I don't need to have an explainable word to understand my experiences.

If you don't need an "explainable" word to understand your experiences, why do you keep talking about this hard problem then? If you already understand your experiences without knowing any theories, why do you think the failure of science to explain what you already understand is a problem at all?

I didn't say "qualia" is not properly defined; I said it is defined in a way that makes it impossible to explain by definition. Because if you can explain, then it's not it.

This reminds me of that foolishness you wrote about wisdom the other day: "only foolish people think they are wise". If you define "wise" that way, then you can be sure that there isn't a single wise person in the whole world; there are only foolish people who claim they are wise, and foolish people who don't mind being foolish.

In all honesty, I don't understand why people engage is such kind of aimless, disoriented thinking. There must be some merit to it, but I just can't see what.

The philosophical problems that I see don't exists [sic] because of something people communicate to me.

The philosophical problems that you see only "exists" in your mind. Exactly how did they get there?

(not that it matters, but why do you write "exists" instead of "exist"?)

I see it for myself and I don't need language to comprehend it.

How exactly do you "see" a problem? I can think about a problem, but I can't see any. And when I think about a problem, I do so using words; as soon as I stop thinking in words all problems cease to exist. I may refer to "thinking about problems using words" as "seeing a problem", but I never lose sight of their essentially linguistic nature.

 

[Fliption]

You mean we have explanations for everything that is not defined as unexplainable?

Again, if "A therefore B" does not equate to "B therefore A."

If you don't need an "explainable" word to understand your experiences, why do you keep talking about this hard problem then? If you already understand your experiences without knowing any theories, why do you think the failure of science to explain what you already understand is a problem at all?

Once again, it is only a problem for science. Not for me. It is a problem for a reductive, materialistic paradigm. If this paradigm goes away, so does the problem.

I didn't say "qualia" is not properly defined; I said it is defined in a way that makes it impossible to explain by definition. Because if you can explain, then it's not it.

If it is defined in such a way that it isn't explainable but yet it is defined properly then we can only conclude that it isn't explainable. What's the problem, if not with the definition?

This reminds me of that foolishness you wrote about wisdom the other day: "only foolish people think they are wise". If you define "wise" that way, then you can be sure that there isn't a single wise person in the whole world; there are only foolish people who claim they are wise, and foolish people who don't mind being foolish.

This was just a common saying that I mentioned. I'm proud of the fact that at least one of us has limited his foolishness to quotes from others rather than making it up himself.

The philosophical problems that you see only "exists" in your mind. Exactly how did they get there?

I "experience" the world. I don't require communication from anyone prior to doing this.

(not that it matters, but why do you write "exists" instead of "exist"?)

It's a typo. Is that ok? Or does this too have some deep meaning that only you can comprehend but can't seem to explain to anyone?

How exactly do you "see" a problem? I can think about a problem, but I can't see any. And when I think about a problem, I do so using words; as soon as I stop thinking in words all problems cease to exist. I may refer to "thinking about problems using words" as "seeing a problem", but I never lose sight of their essentially linguistic nature.

So now you're going to pick on a figure of speech along with the typos? Seems desperate. As I said, I experience the world. The distinctions that are perceived are what is required for thinking. I do not need a communication mechanism like language to perceive distinctions and patterns and reason through what I experience.

 

[confutatis]

It's a typo. Is that ok? Or does this too have some deep meaning that only you can comprehend but can't seem to explain to anyone?

You know, I have never seen you write anything intelligent, but I see you write a lot of dumb stuff, such as "this doesn't exists". Does that have deep meaning? Only you can tell!

 

[Fliption]

You know, I have never seen you write anything intelligent, but I see you write a lot of dumb stuff, such as "this doesn't exists". Does that have deep meaning? Only you can tell!

I said "this doesn't exists"? Ok, if you say so. And why is this dumb? Because of a typo? Oh well, nevermind. This will just go into the ever growing list of cryptic replies I have from you. You are so wise because you can speak and no one knows what you're talking about. Good job.

Actually, I apologize for you feeling that you have to resort to insulting me personally but I have honestly tried to understand what your view is. I really have spent a lot of time thinking about it outside of writing in this forum. I have never said that your view is just nuts or the makings of a mad man. I have been trying to remain open to it by not concluding such things too early. Now I will admit that I have pointed to what I think are errors or inconsistencies in your explanations. But this could just be a problem in communicating the view and not the view itself. And all I am ever looking for is for someone to explain to me why it isn't inconsistent. I'm always open to the fact that I have mis-understood.

Your approach is very much like you think what your saying is obvious to everyone and anyone who disagrees is just playing games with you. Your explanations are defensive, vague and seem to be packed with more shock value than explanatory power. It has been a frustrating exercise to try to learn about your points. I will admit that this frustration may have leaked into my tone, perhaps in this very thread. But now I'm beginning to ask myself "why should I care to learn your view when you have no interest in actually explaining it clearly?" I'm always open to a patient, nondefensive and reasonable discussion if you're up for it. Otherwise, I hope you can find the words to one day communicate your view. It might actually be as wise as you think it is.

I only hope that I haven't committed any typos in this post. I'd hate to be called stupid again because of itchy fingers. Especially when most of my points get no response.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I "experience" the world. I don't require communication from anyone prior to doing this.

I don't know if you recall, but this exact point has been made by several of us, and each time confutatis has done nothing more than restate his opinion without ever being able to justify it with logic and evidence. He believes it passionately, but he can't defend it. Such emotional or egocentric beliefs -- and I don't see how an undefendable belief can be anything but emotional or egocentric -- are immune to the reasoning process with which you are attempting to engage in with him. There is clear, indisputable evidence that aware beings do not require language to understand, know or be conscious, and the only way confutatis has addressed this so far is to ignore the evidence.

I believe the best thinkers at PF are those who recognize that experience is most fundamental to knowing, and keep that as a priority (i.e., justifying assumptions with experienced evidence) while reasoning. Afterall, that is the basis of science. If confutatis can evidentually and logically show us why experience shouldn't be given top honors, then we should change our minds. But he doesn't do that, and so his arguments in the end are nothing more than rationalism.

Rationalism is my new pet peeve, so let me see if I can defend that. A rationalistic argument will go on for paragraphs, pages, a book, centuries, an entire millenium (or two! -- which "rationalism" as a philosophical method actually did) . . . without proper reference to experience that verifies the assumptions being made, and which all subsequent rationalization is based on. Once in the realm of rationalization, there is no escape because absolutely nothing other than tautalogies and illogic can be proven. The truth about reality itself is never decided until, that is, we can experience what we've hypothesized is true.

So what is going on, then, with someone who is being overly rationalistic? I say, he is "in his mind." That is, a person has withdrawn from the direct experience of reality too far, and is thinking more than experiencing. When someone is reasoning in that condition, where disassociated thoughts can imagine any sort of reality, we cannot reach him with evidence that contradicts his reasoning because he refuses to give experience (the basis of "evidence") the proper weight in reasoning it deserves.

In short, I suspect experientialists waste their time trying to reason with someone being overly rationalistic on any issues other than tautologies and logic. I am worried I am becoming intolerant because once I am convinced someone will not be moved by experience that contradicts his/her theory, I want nothing more to do with him/her (unless it's my wife, of course . . . just kidding sweetie . )

 

[hitssquad]

How Rational Are Rationalist Values

Rationalism is my new pet peeve... A rationalistic argument will go on for paragraphs, pages, a book, centuries, an entire millenium (or two! -- which "rationalism" as a philosophical method actually did) . . . without proper reference to experience that verifies the assumptions being made, and which all subsequent rationalization is based on.

• 2.4 How Rational Are Rationalist Values?
  
  
  The semantic pitfall for the man in the street in the use of the terms rational, rationalist and rationalization is nothing compared to the real psychological pitfall in "rationalism." For the clinical psychologist virtually turns the philosopher's enshrinement of reason upside down, considering words and reason as devices given to hide our motives both from others and ourselves.
  
  By "rationalist" here we mean, however, an historical tradition (growing lustily in the late eighteenth century) intending to apply reason to social matters previously handled by superstition, dogma and rule of thumb.
  
  Today this is not enough, in the first place because of the shabby psychological tricks that we know reason can play, e.g., in defenses emanating from the unconscious, and, secondly, because reason without empiricism is only a half of science, and a dangerous half. The rationalist tradition is today still strong, especially in the ways in which would-be-progressive journalists, dramatists and radical politicians approach social problems.

Raymond Cattell. A New Religion from Science: Beyondism. Section 2.4.

Once in the realm of rationalization, there is no escape because absolutely nothing other than tautalogies and illogic can be proven. The truth about reality itself is never decided until, that is, we can experience what we've hypothesized is true.

• It is true that in these instances, as in all such fabrications over the last hundred years, there is some introduction of scientific data or theory, but only by way of lip service. For the writers are essentially concerned to apply "reason" to social affairs -- by which is meant some _a priori_ principle, in which they escape all the reflection on alternative hypotheses and all the labor of trial and error experiment necessary in investigating the real causes of the natural phenomena in question.

Ibid.

So what is going on, then, with someone who is being overly rationalistic? I say, he is "in his mind." That is, a person has withdrawn from the direct experience of reality too far, and is thinking more than experiencing.

• rationalism -- especially as verbal reasoning devoid of research -- is inherently incapable of recognizing the empirical laws which sometimes make an incomprehensible practice vitally necessary to society.

Ibid.

When someone is reasoning in that condition, where disassociated thoughts can imagine any sort of reality, we cannot reach him with evidence that contradicts his reasoning because he refuses to give experience (the basis of "evidence") the proper weight in reasoning it deserves.

• the offspring of rationalism in the obsolete brand of liberalism persisting today continues to think that reason is literary and philosophic rationalism, not the painstaking discovery and complex creativity of science. The more empirically enquiring liberals of the nineteenth century at least originally took a far more scientific approach. Mill (1863), Comte (1905), Malthus, Veblen (1899), Marx (1890), Bentham (1834) and de Nouy (1947) had respect for social laws that did not necessarily work quite as reason would like.

Ibid.

 

[Les Sleeth]

• 2.4 How Rational Are Rationalist Values?

• 
  
  
  Nice post hitssquad.
  
  I wanted to add that the rationalistic criticism isn't intended to discourage reason, but rather to recognize that reason should be naturally limited by the amount of experiential evidence available to support assumptions. At this very moment there are threads and posts here where individuals go on and on about their ideas with only occassional reference (if any) to what experience they or someone's had which supports their reasoning. Unfortunately, too many people think the practice of "philosophy" is actually defined by the old rationalistic standard, when really that sort of philosophy has been dead for awhile. The only people still doing it are philosophy professors and people who've gotten drawn into that inescapable maze, plus a new sort of rationalism that uses some experiential support to make points, but then goes way too far for the amount of evidence they really have (sort of like being rationally "over-extended").

 

[confutatis]

I am worried I am becoming intolerant

I wouldn't worry about it; you can't become what you already are.

Oops, sorry, I'm being too rational again... can't help it...

 

[confutatis]

The semantic pitfall for the man in the street in the use of the terms rational, rationalist and rationalization is nothing compared to the real psychological pitfall in "rationalism." For the clinical psychologist virtually turns the philosopher's enshrinement of reason upside down, considering words and reason as devices given to hide our motives both from others and ourselves.

Conspiracy theories... always a good device to explain away ideas beyond our ability to comprehend...

 

[Fliption]

So what is going on, then, with someone who is being overly rationalistic? I say, he is "in his mind." That is, a person has withdrawn from the direct experience of reality too far, and is thinking more than experiencing. When someone is reasoning in that condition, where disassociated thoughts can imagine any sort of reality, we cannot reach him with evidence that contradicts his reasoning because he refuses to give experience (the basis of "evidence") the proper weight in reasoning it deserves.

This is a pretty good description of what can happen to someone. I think I can actually relate to this myself

Unfortunately, we also have to consider the other alternative. That some people may not be wrapped up in any process at all, other than trying to lay out a bunch of meaningless, obscure, patronizing garbage in a poetic-attempting fashion to make themselves sound important and wise.

 

[Fliption]

Conspiracy theories... always a good device to explain away ideas beyond our ability to comprehend...

I agree. "Semantics" is a similar cop-out.

 

[confutatis]

"Semantics" is a similar cop-out.

You mean, appeals to logic are a cop-out? If a sentence makes no sense, it can still be true?

Sorry, I don't have time for this.

 

[Fliption]

You mean, appeals to logic are a cop-out? If a sentence makes no sense, it can still be true?

Sorry, I don't have time for this.

I mean it is easy to claim that an uncomprehendable idea is simply created through words games. This way, we don't have to challange the status quo.

Sorry I have waisted your verbal primping time with reasonable critiques.

 

[confutatis]

I mean it is easy to claim that an uncomprehendable idea is simply created through words games. This way, we don't have to challange the status quo.

Fliption, the statement above means you are at least a century late when it comes to philosophy. Go learn about analytic philosophy, then we'll talk.

Sorry I have waisted your verbal primping time with reasonable critiques.

There! A meaningless word game! Anyone can claim to be offering reasonable criticism, even when they're not. Most of the time, what I get from you (and Sleeth) is beside-the-point psychobabble about my ego. You may consider that reasonable criticism; I consider it rubbish.

 

[Fliption]

Fliption, the statement above means you are at least a century late when it comes to philosophy. Go learn about analytic philosophy, then we'll talk.

Ok, let's talk.

There! A meaningless word game! Anyone can claim to be offering reasonable criticism, even when they're not. Most of the time, what I get from you (and Sleeth) is beside-the-point psychobabble about my ego. You may consider that reasonable criticism; I consider it rubbish.

I can accept this. But if what I'm saying or asking is not reasonable, I usually expect someone to explain to me why. I have spent a lot of time trying to slowly go through your view step by step. I do this generally by asking questions. When I get to a point I don't understand or seem to disgree with based on the premises, I question the apparent inconsistency. This process usually gets me where I'm going. But it hasn't worked with you. You respond to about 1/8 of my post and ignore some of the most important parts. The things you do answer eventually go in a circle and lead me right back where I started and by this time the tone is defensive. The whole time, I'm taking patronizing jabs about how foolish everyone is for not seeing what you see. Who can blame me for being frustrated? The odd thing is, I have absolutely no agenda with you. I suspect we agree in the end. I am truly trying to understand your view. Since I don't have these issues understanding others, the conclusions I make are to be expected.

Did the thought ever occur to you that the reason you can't explain your view is because you don't understand it well enough yourself?

BTW, I think Lwsleeth was critiquing your discussion style which is clearly within the scope of a forum such as this. I don't see any psychobabble about your ego.

 

[confutatis]

Did the thought ever occur to you that the reason you can't explain your view is because you don't understand it well enough yourself?

Fliption, between kindergarten and the last year of university, I spent almost twenty years of my life in school. By the time I learned how to solve a problem in electromagnetism using the four Maxwell equations, I knew more than I could possibly explain in a whole book, let alone a few posts I write during coffee breaks at work.

According to your reasoning, if I try to explain Maxwell's equations to you and you fail to understand it, I should think I don't understand them myself. But I don't judge my knowledge based on my ability to condense a lifetime of learning in a few paragraphs written in haste.

Enough said.

 

[Fliption]

Fliption, between kindergarten and the last year of university, I spent almost twenty years of my life in school. By the time I learned how to solve a problem in electromagnetism using the four Maxwell equations, I knew more than I could possibly explain in a whole book, let alone a few posts I write during coffee breaks at work.
Enough said.

Wow. You must drink a lot of coffee! :surprise:

I understand what you're saying and don't necessarily disagree. I'm just suggesting that there may be other alternatives to "no one can understand it but you". I would hope that, in time, if nothing changes, these alternatives would be considered.

 

[confutatis]

Wow. You must drink a lot of coffee!

You have no idea... my job often gets boring to death, but I still must remain stuck to this computer the whole day long. It's a modern form of slavery.

I'm just suggesting that there may be other alternatives to "no one can understand it but you".

I never said no one can understand it, but I'm fully aware that some new concepts can be extremely difficult to explain, because they require understanding of hundreds, often thousands of concepts on which the new concept is based. If you don't understand the concepts underlying an idea, it is impossible to understand the idea. You can't understand Maxwell's equations if you don't fully understand differential calculus; you can't understand the stuff I'm talking about if you don't have a good grasp of analytic philosophy.

I would hope that, in time, if nothing changes, these alternatives would be considered.

I sincerely hope you be more realistic and don't expect me to teach you things it took me years to learn. I can point the way to go if you want to go, but I can't take you there myself.

If you're really interested in this subject, Wittgenstein's Tractatus is one of the best starting points. You may also find the philosophy of logical positivism helpful to understand some of the concepts I've mentioned here. For some reason I can't quite explain, the writings of Albert Einstein and Richard Feynman have also been quite influential on my understanding of consciousness, but I realize you can't benefit much from those if you don't have a solid understanding of physics.

Apart from that, the best I can give you are "cryptic" answers to your difficult questions. It is my perception that you tend to oversimplify things; in reality very few things are simple enough that we can understand them in a rational way.

 

[Fliption]

You have no idea... my job often gets boring to death, but I still must remain stuck to this computer the whole day long. It's a modern form of slavery.

I relate.

I sincerely hope you be more realistic and don't expect me to teach you things it took me years to learn. I can point the way to go if you want to go, but I can't take you there myself.

Apart from that, the best I can give you are "cryptic" answers to your difficult questions. It is my perception that you tend to oversimplify things; in reality very few things are simple enough that we can understand them in a rational way.

Since I don't understand the view you're espousing, I have no choice but to allow for this reference to an understanding of underlying concepts and fields of study. But I hope this lecture will eventually be given to everyone else posting here that doesn't understand what you're saying. I think the point in my previous post still stands.

While you may think I've oversimplified things, I can honestly say that I have been asking for external sources all along. I've gotten one, I think. I'll be glad to look up these additional things you've posted here a bit more, even though I have already read much of this.

 

[confutatis]

Since I don't understand the view you're espousing, I have no choice but to allow for this reference to an understanding of underlying concepts and fields of study.

In all honesty, I don't think you should really waste time with this. The only thing you will gain from learning what I know is that you would understand me better - then you would say "what, is that all the big deal? That's trivial!". I know nothing of any significance that you don't already know; I consider philosophy a form of diversion, sort of like putting puzzles together. A lot of hard work but no real accomplishment other than the fun of doing it.

While you may think I've oversimplified things

I meant it in the sense that you ask me difficult questions, such as "is litmus paper conscious", and expect me to give you a short answer that makes sense.

 

[Fliption]

In all honesty, I don't think you should really waste time with this. The only thing you will gain from learning what I know is that you would understand me better - then you would say "what, is that all the big deal? That's trivial!". I know nothing of any significance that you don't already know; I consider philosophy a form of diversion, sort of like putting puzzles together. A lot of hard work but no real accomplishment other than the fun of doing it.

Ahhh man. I wish you'd have said this a long time ago.

I meant it in the sense that you ask me difficult questions, such as "is litmus paper conscious", and expect me to give you a short answer that makes sense.

I think that was a rhetorical question trying to peel the onion to figure out exactly what your view was saying. It wasn't meant to be answered literally.