What do you mean “proof”? Proof that the field of philosophy considers there to be a distinction? lot of people believe something therefore it’s true i am very intelligent I pointed you to a great resource to learn about this, the proof that philosophers think there is a distinction and the details of how and why they believe that (and common arguments against it if that’s your jam!) are RIGHT THERE in the link I provided. This is why Chalmerites like yourself are subhumans bugs. You have no brains. You are entirely incapable of conscious thought. It is literally physically impossible for you to ever think about anything anyone ever says. Your brain just absorbs something that someone told you as a fact. When asked to justify it, every Chalermite bug is shocked at the very idea someone does dares question the eternal wisdom! To rationalize it, they conclude: the only possible way someone disagrees is that they just don’t understand the great wisdom of our lord and savior David Chalmers! They must just be an uneducated heathen who has not seen the light of the scriptures! Like, this is literally related to “I think, therefore I am”. Yeah, an idiotic and completely circular statement, because “I” is both in the premise and the conclusion, and so using it to prove that “I” (the self) is a priori is the highest level of sophistry. If you disagree with philosophy in general If “philosophy” = Chalmerite brainrot, then sure, I oppose philosophy. Edit: Oh, I see you actually edited an argument into your response, rather than just making appeals to authority and accusing me of being a know-nothing who just doesn’t understand your genius. Sadly, however, this argument is incoherent. Your eyes measure the photons and cause your brain to produce the subjective experience of “red”. Nothing about this relies on you knowing how photons work. Monitors vary and rgb doesn’t correlate directly to light wavelength, but it therefore also does not correlate directly with your subjective experience. Your subjective experience also does not always line up with wavelengths of light- All you have done is literally copy/paste what I said myself, that color does not directly correspond to the wavelengths of light, but then append to that “subjective experience” with no explanation at all! Where did that even come from in the argument? You just suddenly decided to substitute “color” in with “subjective experience” in the sentence as if that is an argument, with no explanation at all for what justifies doing so! You haven’t even established that “subjective experience” even exists, let alone given any reason as to why you can substitute the word “color” with it. It is not possible to percieve the world objectively. Again, I don’t know what that even means. Perception is perception. It is not meaningfully “subjective” or “objective.” In the phrase “subjective way that you percieve the world”, I am again just using “subjective” the same way I used “internal”, ie. to emphasize that I am talking about your experience of the world Again, if “subjective” just means “your X” then me eating a sandwich would be subjectively eating a sandwich, and my house would a subjective house… it is not a natural way to use the term. and not the actual world itself (think of how you percieve the grey squares in the above illusion rather than how they are physically the same color). How are they “physically the same color” if you just said they are different? And didn’t you just substitute in “color” for “subjective experience”? So what the hell is “physical color”? You are contradicting yourself!