uncial

After that follows rather technical moment which needs to be consider before we can discuss the question of existence of possible qualia. This technical moment is connected with the idea that unobserved qualia still have definite qualitative state.

But what is the "technical moment"? What is "definitive qualitative state"? How are they "connected"?

The problem isn't typos; the problem is I don't know what you're trying to say. Wobbly abstract explanations like the E=MC^2 thing don't help pin it down -- what would help would be saying the exact thing you mean... (read more)

Red has functional part and qualitative part, reddnes. (...) E is energy in E=mc2. Its functional role is defined by the equation, but the variable itself can be denoted by a different letter, like W.

No, that's not "two different roles of the same thing", that's "two entirely different things":

• Energy is the thing described by E=mc^2
• The letter "E" is an arbitrary representation of the concept of the energy

These are not remotely the same thing. They are not two aspects of same thing. They are not two facets of the same thing. They are two entirely distinct t... (read more)

If we assume the second view, that closed qualia do not have a qualitative part, there is no "possible qualia" – all qualia that exist are those that I currently observe. Thus, there is no "possible red" in that case; it is an oxymoron, and the question is empty.

This is where you lose me.

1. What is a "qualitative part"?
2. How is this different to saying "All apples that exist are those that currently exist. Thus, there is no 'possible apple'; it is an oxymoron." Isn't the whole point of the word "possible" that you're invoking a superset of actual things?

I mean,... (read more)

Yes, it would change my view; it's an important point, though not the sole one.

25Hour's description of the incident with Good is strategically misleading in multiple ways. I picked this specific point because it was the most unambiguously false. In the counterfactual world where it was true, it wouldn't fix the other points, but it would (and should) shift how I think about the incident.

Whether there were other commands that didn't get captured in the video audio, I don't know

I think this is a bit too charitable. First, we have multiple videos, and the aud... (read more)

You are not telling the truth. 

Per reports, agents gave contradictory commands. Some told her to leave. Others demanded she exit the vehicle.

As per the actual events, documented in multiple videos from multiple angles, Good was not given contradictory commands. She was instructed to "Get out of the (fucking) car" three times in a row.

That doesn't mean that ICE is right. That doesn't mean the shooting was acceptable. It means that what you said was untrue.

Were there "reports" of the incorrect narrative you describe? Yes. Does that matter, now that we k... (read more)

Unless I've misunderstood, this post is severely misleading, starting with:

seven specific forecasts from November 2024 that we can score right now against what actually happened

... but you don't have "seven specific forecasts from November 2024". You've retroactively constructed 7 descriptions of possible events. Those aren't "forecasts", and they're certainly not "from November 2024". They're absolutely not "specific, falsifiable predictions" (emphasis mine) -- it's impossible to falsify a "prediction" that was tailored to suit your observations after you... (read more)