The Philosophy of Rick and Morty

[gib]

During the past few months, I have become an avid fan of the adult cartoon series Rick and Morty. It's sort of a sit com, a cartoon for adults like I said, like Family Guy, only it's a lot more intelligent and gets quite deep and philosophical at certain points. I think a philosophical dissection of Rick and Morty can easily be done, going episode by episode, which is something I'd like to do. Hence, this thread.

To start, watch this:



For the most part, the above video touches on some fascinating philosophical questions indeed--what I call insight philosophy--but for me, the really interesting parts of Rick and Morty are the one's that strike at things personal within me, and which I assume are within everyone to one degree or another. <-- I call this depth philosophy; the philosophy of what lies deep within the human soul.

Rick and Morty is good at drawing this out, especially if you watch while stoned. I want to put that out front right at the beginning: I watched each episode twice, first while stoned, then sober. Watching it stoned on pot, like experiencing almost anything stoned on pot, stirs up emotions and personal angst even more than being sober during therapy with a viciously penetrating psychoanalyst.

So while I intend to go through each episode (there are two seasons: 11 episodes and 10 episodes, respectively), touching on some of the personal angst they made me feel and the philosophical questions that brings forward, I want to lay out, in this introduction, some of the basic themes I got out of the series overall.

First, a bit of political philosophy: the series seems almost definitely written by conservatives. The theme of the ruthless, selfish capitalist is definitely embodied in Rick's character. He's a jerk, he's an asshole, and he walks all over even his own family, but he's smart enough and has the wherewithal to save the day at the end of every crisis, just like the capitalist, who is a ruthless soul, ends up improving life for everyone (producing goods and services that benefit us all, and also jobs and wealth to those who need to put food on the table). He's the guy you love to hate and hate to love. As much of a jerk as you think he is, you can't help but to see him as the good guy in the end. Even Morty can't rid himself of this impression: he hates Rick's manipulative and exploitative antics, and let's him know this, but then thanks his lucky stars when Rick is around to save the day. Morty even goes so far as to sometimes idealize him and relish the thought of being Rick's side kick, going on adventures and exploring strange new worlds with him.

Second, a bit of personal philosophy: the dichotomy of Rick and Jerry, a contrast of polar opposites, strikes me as two sides of myself. Rick is the person I wish I was, while Jerry is the person I'm afraid I am. And I think this is most likely true, to one degree or another, of everyone, particularly men. Just as Rick's exploits to other planets and different dimensions have turned him, over the years, into the thick-skinned, cynical, unfeeling jerk we know him to be from the series, my drug exploits, at least the harsh ones, have taken a somewhat similar toll on me (in effect, this is definitely what Rick's interdimensional/otherworldly exploits symbolize for me). But I'm nothing like Rick in person--the inner Rick sometimes comes out here at ILP, but if you were to meet me in person, you would definitely not see the same gib you think you know. In real life, I'm definitely more beta-male than alpha, and sometimes very insecure, much like Jerry. I don't want to be like that, I hate being like that, and so I hope the inner Rick is somewhat a part of who I really am and not a complete sham. Realistically, though, I think I'm an even mix of the two.

^^ That's personal, but I think it applies to everyone to a certain degree. And as something universal to human beings, I definitely think we can turn it into a bit of depth philosophy.

These two points aren't really the central focus of this thread, but I mention them just because they are the two most relevant points that come to mind having to do with the Rick and Morty series as a whole (as opposed to themes which we will look at on a per-episode basis). So I mention them if for no other reason than to get them out of the way.

This undoubtedly is going to be another lengthy project much like my Reforming Democracy thread and I think I'll be able to post on, at most, a weekly basis (realistically, it will probably be more like every two weeks). But that's fine. There's no rush.

We'll start with episode 1 of season 1 next time.

[WendyDarling]

My PC is on the blink. No vid. then I post asking for vid. and "voila" vid. appears. Looks like I'll have to watch your clip Gibballoons, now that it's visibly available.

[gib]

My PC is on the blink. No vid. then I post asking for vid. and "voila" vid. appears. Looks like I'll have to watch your clip Gibballoons, now that it's visibly available.

Huh? Let me translate this to English:

You've got a virus on your computer (we've established that in other threads), which is why your computer is on the blink. You're obviously still able to surf the net which is why you're able to say "No vid." <-- You came to ILP, saw my post, and the video didn't render/display (presumably 'cause of the virus). You initially posted a reply to me saying "gib, can I get an actual video please?" only to find, once you hit submit, that your request was magically granted. (You can thank me later. ).

Ask and ye shall receive, I guess.

But then seeing as you now got a video, you went back and edited your post to give me:

My PC is on the blink. No vid. then I post asking for vid. and "voila" vid. appears. Looks like I'll have to watch your clip Gibballoons, now that it's visibly available.

Have I translated properly?

Seriously, you should wipe out and reinstall your whole OS. I can even help you through it (I run a software business).

[WendyDarling]

Oh Gibweiser,

I will accept your help.(English translation to follow )

[Amorphos]

I think the cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.

[gib]

I think the cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.

How shall I interpret this? Are you saying that the cosmos itself is insignificant when you remove humanity form the picture? And what if you didn't remove humanity? Would the cosmos then be significant even though humanity itself remains insignificant?

[Ultimate Philosophy 1001]

If humanity is insignificant, why does Consciousness find itself on this planet?

[gib]

If humanity is insignificant, why does Consciousness find itself on this planet?

Personally, I think consciousness is everywhere, but to me, that makes everything significant.

[Chakra Superstar]

<snip>
We'll start with episode 1 of season 1 next time.

Should be interesting...

[Ultimate Philosophy 1001]

If humanity is insignificant, why does Consciousness find itself on this planet?

Personally, I think consciousness is everywhere, but to me, that makes everything significant.

Consciousness isn't everywhere, there is only One consciousness.

The theoretical potential for consciousness is everywhere.

[Amorphos]

I think the cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.

How shall I interpret this? Are you saying that the cosmos itself is insignificant when you remove humanity form the picture? And what if you didn't remove humanity? Would the cosmos then be significant even though humanity itself remains insignificant?

well just saying that without the presence of the experiencer nothing is being experienced, and is at least in that sense is insignificant. The world would be turning, bodies would be in motion, and it would all be like a merry-go-round but with no one taking the ride.

Personally, I think consciousness is everywhere, but to me, that makes everything significant.

Consciousness probably only exists where there is a 'projector', no?

[gib]

Consciousness isn't everywhere, there is only One consciousness.

Yes, Trixie, we've been over this before: you have your view of consciousness, I have mine.

well just saying that without the presence of the experiencer nothing is being experienced, and is at least in that sense is insignificant.

So you mean that in order for something to be considered significant, it must be experienced as significant? Yes, this is very true.

Consciousness probably only exists where there is a 'projector', no?

Yes, which is everywhere.

[Ultimate Philosophy 1001]

Yes, Trixie, we've been over this before: you have your view of consciousness, I have mine.

You only have one consciousness. Yours is one, mine is one. These are the facts.

[Amorphos]

Gib

So you mean that in order for something to be considered significant, it must be experienced as significant? Yes, this is very true.

Yes its almost like it doesn't exist or is in some way futile, pointless, ~ billions of galaxies or not.

Yes, which is everywhere.

Wow really?!

I was thinking that you need the instrument. I am intrigued to know what you mean by that though?

[gib]

Ok, so this didn't take as long as a I thought.

The pilot is relatively simple. Before we go any further, however, I would like to say something which I should have said in the OP: SPOILER ALERT!!!

This whole thread is one gargantuan spoiler.

There, now that that's out of the way, watch this:

Rick and Morty - Pilot.

If you want to browse all episodes <-- well now you can.

I'm sorry I couldn't get a link to a youtube video, thereby allowing you to watch it without leaving ILP, but most of the R&M pilots that managed to get on youtube are low quality (half of them, for some reason, have the tempo of the characters' voices raised).

Anyway, on with...

Rick and Morty - S1E1 - Pilot

The pilot was kind of shallow. Not much to dig into yet. Not a big surprise, mind you--when you release a pilot, you do want to be careful not to go too extreme--not at first.

But I really like how it starts out: Rick comes into Morty's room completely drunk. Right away, this must have reminded me of myself (I don't quite remember). I'm a conditional alcoholic (conditional on caffeine). You can read all about it here. <-- That's a personal issue. I don't have anything philosophical to make out of it. Maybe someone else can.

Right away, I see symbols of American Conservatism: Rick's ship has something almost resembling the American flag sticking out of the back (I take it the creators must have had to deal with certain legal considerations about putting an actual American flag on Rick's ship, but that's shear speculation).

Jerry waltzes in on Beth while she's performing life-determining surgery on a horse. He wants to go out to lunch with her. She kinda gives him the tone that "now's not a good time"--he appears oblivious. He proceeds to walk out but "accidentally" drops a brochure for a senior's home. <-- All of a sudden, we see why he wanted to take Beth out to lunch.

^^ We're going to see a lot of this from Jerry. I didn't quite see it myself until the last episode of season II, but once I saw it, and watched the pilot once again, I now see it was there from the beginning: Jerry doesn't know how to love. He expects that every kind act should be followed by a reward. He didn't come by to take Beth out for lunch just to spend some time with her, he wanted to slip the idea of putting Rick, Beth's father, into a home (not to mention the fact that he did it anyway--got the idea of the senior's home across to Beth--when he got the hint that lunch wasn't in the cards).

However, to be fair to Jerry, there will be times when he pulls through and becomes a "real man". They're far and few between, but it's in him.

Furthermore, when Beth finally does have some time, and talks with Jerry, we find that she's not so virtuous either. They have a relatively meaningful talk, and Jerry finally sees it from her point of view (that Rick, Morty's grandpa, is Morty's only friends). He says "I suppose you're right." Beth, in turn, says in a rather sarcastic tone "Uh, yeeeaaah, I'm smart. I am my father's daughter, after all." (or something to that effect). <-- So Jerry concedes, sees it from her point of view, and she responds with sarcasm. Like Jerry, we will be seeing a lot of this from Beth.

Then there's Rick and Morty's first adventure:

There was a short little speech Rick gave to Morty upon arriving in what Rick called an "alternate evolutionary timeline" (presumably still Earth, but where evolution went in a wildly different direction?). I'm not going to quote characters verbatim (unless I happen to have it memorized), but Rick said something along the lines of: I've been through a lot of dangerous adventures, Morty, and seen some pretty crazy shit. I know what it's like because I've been there. So just stick with me and you'll be all right. I'll get us through this. ( <-- Probably not my best Rick impression ).

^^ This speech pretty much sets the theme for the whole series. This speech pretty much defines their relation and their rolls with respect to each other. Morty defies this quite a bit in the series, usually on principled grounds, and this almost always gets him in trouble. But of course, Rick always comes around to get him out of trouble. He's really very unforgiving of Morty when he does this (and quite frankly abusive), going so far as to rename "taking a shit" to "Morty" ( <-- as in: "I'm going to take a big Morty." <-- but that's in another episode. ), but he always proves to be the good guy who gets Morty's ass out of trouble while everyone else would either have not given a flying hoot or have been trying to kill/hurt him. The idea, we are lead to believe, is that everything would go just swimmingly if Morty would simply listen to everything Rick says (of course, the series has several examples of how Rick, with his arrogantly cocky attitude, is the one to goof up but somehow always finds a way to blame Morty <-- And that's another thing about Rick we'll learn--that he has a tendency to place the blame wherever's convenient for him, and he does this through his determinism). <-- Once again, the theme of the ruthless, greedy capitalist comes to mind--seen, of course, through a conservatist's eye.

As we get to know the character, we get a sense that he brings Morty into these situations in the first place because he honestly believes he can easily get himself and his grandson out of any sticky situation whatsoever, and all due to his superior intellect. Yes, he is incredibly cocky (which is what I love about him!), and his ego is blown way out of proportion, but he's not all together mistaken about himself. He is smart enough to get himself and his grandson out of any sticky situation--not as smoothly as he'd like to think, but he gets the job done--but it's these sloppy imperfections that occasionally get in through the blind-spots that his ego creates for him that end up hurting Morty more than it's worth.

We get a perfect example of this when Morty falls off the edge of the cliff (because he didn't realize he had to turn the boots on), and ended up writhing on the ground in extreme pain, his legs mangled and broken. Right away, Rick blamed him: "You have to turn the boots on, Morty!" We also get a sense of Rick's insensitivity here. The first thing he says, after blaming Morty, is: I know you're in a lot of pain, Morty, but can you still help me? Finally he resolves to go to another dimension where they have an instant cure for "mangled legs" and bring it back. There's a good 5 second wait time while Morty lays there moaning in agony, and it makes you wonder: could Rick have returned instantly if he cared to? Anyway, he fixes Morty's legs, and Morty says that he "never felt better in his whole life." <-- I don't know if we're supposed to take that literally or not, but it's a perfect example of what I said above: how Morty will praise Rick, or at least marvel at Rick's work, when he saves the day.

Beth is surprised to find that Rick has been taking Morty out of school to go on his adventures with him, and she is furious. Jerry, while also furious, plays a petty game of "see, I told you so," with Beth. Yes, Morty may have a "friend", but that's definitely not worth taking him out of school for. It's decided (somehow) that Rick should leave. But Rick, of course, finds a way to manipulate his way back into staying (mainly appealing to Jerry's "wearing the pants" in the household).

There's a weird sequence at the end (which I swear has hidden messages in it ) with Morty writhing on the garage floor in a semi-vegetated state with Rick looming over him talking about "Rick and Morty for 100 years" or something and "www.rickandmortyadventures.com". <-- I didn't remember that sequence being at the end of the pilot first time around. I *think* it's because the first time around was on youtube; they must have cut it short.

^^ Now, besides the possible marketing ploy (i.e. go to http://www.rickandmortyadventures.com*), I came up with an interpretation of this scene which I'm not sure is obvious to everyone: those seeds which Morty has up his ass did indeed have the effects that Rick said (made him really smart then made him really dumb), but there's an additional effect Rick did not tell him, and that's this: in the dumb phase, where Morty is writhing on the ground in kind of a semi-vegetated state, he can be brainwashed extremely easily. This weird speech that Rick gives is not just Rick mentally masturbating but mentally programming Morty to become his side kick for all the adventures they will go on. <-- That was the whole point of getting the seeds (it's kind of suspicious, isn't it, that while Rick expresses disappointment that the seeds have already dissolved in Morty's system, he's taking it rather lightly for something that was that important to his research).

Wow, this turned out to be more of a character analysis than a philosophical one. <-- But like I always say, that's fodder for depth philosophy.

* Do not go to http://www.rickandmorty100years.com.

[Amorphos]

yes but first I want to know what you mean by projection being everywhere? ...sounds interesting.

[gib]

Hey guys,

You both just so happen to be posting while I was ready to post my analysis of the pilot. So I guess we'll argue around that.

Trixie,

You only have one consciousness. Yours is one, mine is one. These are the facts.

What you are calling "consciousness," I consider an island in a sea of cosmic mind. The boundaries between "me" as my own consciousness and the outer world is illusory. We experience things in all kinds of physical systems all around us--we just can't know it. It is experienced "unconsciously" so to speak. Of course, this very interpretation of mine has implications for what counts as "we"--"we" ends up just meaning all those experiences which we are consciously aware of having. <-- But we are still connected through continuous experience with the rest of the universe.

Yes its almost like it doesn't exist or is in some way futile, pointless, ~ billions of galaxies or not.

Yes, inconsequential.

Wow really?!

I was thinking that you need the instrument. I am intrigued to know what you mean by that though?

I mean that I don't think of consciousness (i.e. qualia) as something that requires a functioning brain in order to be had. Consciousness (qualia) is something that comes with any physical system undergoing any kind of activity. The kind of activity it undergoes determines the quality felt in the quale. And whatever the quality, it will project as some aspect of a reality (experienced by the system in question) and will be meaningful to it.

[Amorphos]

I should say thanks first, I don't get the show on the channel setup I have.

I mean that I don't think of consciousness (i.e. qualia) as something that requires a functioning brain in order to be had. Consciousness (qualia) is something that comes with any physical system undergoing any kind of activity. The kind of activity it undergoes determines the quality felt in the quale. And whatever the quality, it will project as some aspect of a reality (experienced by the system in question) and will be meaningful to it.

This is going to sound mad but when I was a glue-sniffing young punk, the onlooker would see me as a dribbling wreck. However, I remember clearly that I could think if anything more intelligently than normal. So the brain is mush, and the intellect is enhanced!

You see consciousness as 'qualia'? Does e.g. colour experience itself? ergo we can surely think of the experiencing thing as categorically different to the class of non-experiencing things i.e. all qualia, qualities and info.

I think there is something else which communicates between categorically different things, and between one quality or qualia & another, ..and between those things and the experience. Info in terms of language, is not the same as physical information, but for us to know it, again there must be a thrid party communicative aspect to the equation.

I don't know how the projection could be everywhere, but perhaps as physical info is talking to us in English - so to say, that could mean that every perspective point in existence is a projector. but that would infer an observer ~ experiencer, is also at every point?
_

[gib]

I should say thanks first, I don't get the show on the channel setup I have.

You're welcome! Are you getting the videos here at ILP all right?

This is going to sound mad but when I was a glue-sniffing young punk, the onlooker would see me as a dribbling wreck. However, I remember clearly that I could think if anything more intelligently than normal. So the brain is mush, and the intellect is enhanced!

Drugs can perform either enhancement or degradation to the brain's functioning. Drugs are sometimes prescribed to enhance certain brain functions. Think about the effect caffeine has on the brain. It enhances thinking.

Drugs have one of two effects on neurons: they either 1) increase the neuron's sensitivity to firing or 2) decrease the neuron's sensitivity to firing. They increase brain activity or they decrease it. Sometimes increasing brain activity is a good thing, sometimes it's a bad thing. Same with decreasing brain activity. It all depends on whether you have too much of it in your brain or too little. Sometimes decreasing brain activity is a good thing in itself, other times it's a good thing because it indirectly increases other brain activity, brain activity that you need more of. Same with increasing brain activity. <-- It all depends.

You see consciousness as 'qualia'? Does e.g. colour experience itself?

In a manner of speaking, yes. Consciousness, qualia, color (the projection of qualia)--all these things are different conceptions of a single thing--it's all rolled into one--at least for me. Being conscious of a color, feeling it, is part and parcel of the quale of color itself, essential to what makes it a quale. There is no quale which isn't felt. So if there is a quale of the color red (say), that quale is felt by itself, it experiences itself. <-- But this is to be contrasted with knowing about the quale. The quale of red will feel itself as the existence of red, but that does not mean any knowledge (i.e. any thought) about the existence of red will arise from that. Knowledge (i.e. thought) is a whole other quale and, at least with humans, does arise out of the perception of color, but that's an artifact of how our brains are wired.

ergo we can surely think of the experiencing thing as categorically different to the class of non-experiencing things i.e. all qualia, qualities and info.

Well, as I said, the "experience" part is essential to what makes it a quale. It only exists by way of being experienced.

I think there is something else which communicates between categorically different things, and between one quality or qualia & another, ..and between those things and the experience. Info in terms of language, is not the same as physical information, but for us to know it, again there must be a thrid party communicative aspect to the equation.

Ok, I appreciate your view. If you thought of all these things as separate--the qualia from consciousness from physical existence from info--then you would have to have some conduit in order for any one of these things to affect any other.

I don't know how the projection could be everywhere, but perhaps as physical info is talking to us in English - so to say, that could mean that every perspective point in existence is a projector. but that would infer an observer ~ experiencer, is also at every point?

Yes, as "experience" is just a synonym of "quale", but that's not to be confused with individuation at every point--where "individuation" means a separate being at every point--it still forms a seamless continuum. Individuation in the case of human beings is another story--it has centrally to do with knowledge (as I alluded to above).

[Ultimate Philosophy 1001]

What i dont get, is if they are all active projectors at the same time...then what arbitrary mechanism divides and localizes it to me, instead of you?

clearly, they are not all active at the same time, they are only potentially active, and one of them decides to be active at a time, ala in a priority queue, inside of another metatimespace in which it can go backwards and reactivate the others, or none at all, if it so chooses, rendering all of you nonsentients.

[gib]

What i dont get, is if they are all active projectors at the same time...then what arbitrary mechanism divides and localizes it to me, instead of you?

What do you mean "localizes" it to you? You mean all the so-called "projectors" ( <-- is that like another word for "monad"? ) being localized to you? Like you become all of universal consciousness?

What happens to me? Am I not in the picture?

I can't really answer your question if you insist that you're the only one who's conscious here.

However, there is the question of our individuation. I feel like my consciousness is localized to right her, right now, in me, and anything beyond those boundaries is "other", but I think these boundaries are an illusion. They are the effect of not all experiences in the universe being known. For example, if you feel pain in your finger, you know you're in pain. Why? Because the receptor cells in your finger send signals to your somatosensory cortex (where you feel touch sensation and pain), and that in turn sends signals to the cognitive regions, essentially allowing you to think "Ah, I am in pain." <-- That is required for knowledge. But now what happens if a tree falls on the other side of the planet? Will any signals be sent to my cognitive centers to inform me of this? If you'll grant my theory that subjective experience is had by any physical system, then we would have to say that there was an experience had, which corresponds to the falling of the tree, that did not lead to knowledge of that experience, such that someone could say "Ah, I am feeling X." What this means is that we cannot be conscious of all the experiences we, as the universe, are having unless the physical activity corresponding to those experiences can directly stimulate our cognitive centers. <-- That's what creates the illusion.

clearly, they are not all active at the same time, they are only potentially active, and one of them decides to be active at a time, ala in a priority queue, inside of another metatimespace in which it can go backwards and reactivate the others, or none at all, if it so chooses, rendering all of you nonsentients.

Yes, given that all the projectors are divided and localized to you, this would follow.

[gib]

Further to my theory that the strange end sequence is a "brainwashing" session on the part of Rick upon Morty, there is a bit more evidence to support it: remember the whole reason Morty was told he had to shove those seeds up his ass in the first place? Because Rick's portal gun ran out of power. This was supposedly after he spent way too much time partying it up with young girls in the really advanced futuristic dimension, and by then his portal gun was drained (supposedly with enough left over to get back to Morty). But maybe Rick never planned on getting himself and Morty back home through a portal at all. Maybe this was just an excuse to get Morty to shove the seeds up his ass.

There will be a subtle hint of this in Episode 5, Season 2--"Get Schwifty"--where Rick pulls the same excuse about his portal gun being low on juice but this time Morty finds out it's a crock of shit.

[Ultimate Philosophy 1001]

you and me are in different locations of the spiritual timeline, connected through the physical metatimeline.

if i am not you in a past or future life, it is impossible for you to be sentient.

also, you got no evidence trees experience anything in order for us to forget our knowledge of being a tree.

[Amorphos]

Gib

Drugs can perform either enhancement or degradation to the brain's functioning. Drugs are sometimes prescribed to enhance certain brain functions. Think about the effect caffeine has on the brain. It enhances thinking.

For sure. On the other hand conscious people are always still 'people', I mean that's true even of severely mentally handicapped. You're probably right though.

Being conscious of a color, feeling it, is part and parcel of the quale of color itself

But my TV does have colour, and there is colour in the world which we are seeing, and yet those instances of colour are purely manifest of photonic light. I'd suggest that quale are manifest with respect to the given, and it doesn't matter if that is human or a device. ...they are part of the universe without [aside from] humans [and human experience].

I think the quale are the thing between the experience/r and physical information. Going out on a limb, i'd add that the experiencer is equally affecting - upon quale and possibly/probably info too.

The quale of red will feel itself as the existence of red

When you say 'feel'? I would think it doesn't know or experience anything et al, it simply is. You get the physical information denoting red in e.g. that part of a rainbow, and that manifests the quality of redness.

Ok, I appreciate your view. If you thought of all these things as separate--the qualia from consciousness from physical existence from info--then you would have to have some conduit in order for any one of these things to affect any other.

Yes there would have to be 'something' which is the third party betwixt all things, an universal entity. It may be simpler to think of it analogously that; the universe is one thing + all types of energy are interchangeable + all particles throughout the universe are communicating and interacting. Ergo there is ultimately one thing which can become all the variety of things, and that oneness must manifest the connectivity where one thing forms into another and so forth.

The 'thing' is informed by and informs all things. So you get photonic information which tells 'it' to manifest the quale 'red', and it does that on the TV screen and also in ones brain, and you see the red qualia.

Yes, as "experience" is just a synonym of "quale",

so what's on the TV screen and the rainbow?

but that's not to be confused with individuation at every point--where "individuation" means a separate being at every point--it still forms a seamless continuum. Individuation in the case of human beings is another story--it has centrally to do with knowledge (as I alluded to above).

It seams that the cardinality is at best vague. ...but something makes things take shape and denotes limits e.g. of you/others, and there isn't just space.
_

[gib]

you and me are in different locations of the spiritual timeline, connected through the physical metatimeline.

if i am not you in a past or future life, it is impossible for you to be sentient.

also, you got no evidence trees experience anything in order for us to forget our knowledge of being a tree.

It's not an evidence thing. It's an opinion thing. This is why I don't try to prove my view to you. I don't know why you're trying to prove your view to me. You got no evidence either. Is this something you've personally experienced?

But my TV does have colour, and there is colour in the world which we are seeing, and yet those instances of colour are purely manifest of photonic light. I'd suggest that quale are manifest with respect to the given, and it doesn't matter if that is human or a device. ...they are part of the universe without [aside from] humans [and human experience].

A quale is traditionally defined as mental. It's the seeing of color. No seeing, no quale. What you're talking about is just the color of the object.

The color of objects in the world can persist from the projections of a mind because it doesn't only project from the sight of color. It can also project from belief. If you are not looking at your television, you may still believe there are colors X, Y, and Z on the screen, and that belief will project as the colors X, Y, and Z.

I think the quale are the thing between the experience/r and physical information. Going out on a limb, i'd add that the experiencer is equally affecting - upon quale and possibly/probably info too.

Do you think of qualia like different colored bloches of light projecting on the inner surface of a mental bubble, so to speak? And the physical information, as you call it, is outside this bubble of qualia, streaming into it so to speak, telling us what qualia to perceive as parts or aspects of reality?

When you say 'feel'? I would think it doesn't know or experience anything et al, it simply is.

Yes, and part of what it "is" is feeling--you can't have it without it being felt. You see, I'm tying consciousness into being itself--consciousness is being. There is no such thing as the unconscious Kantian noumena.

You get the physical information denoting red in e.g. that part of a rainbow, and that manifests the quality of redness.

Well, that's certainly the conventional view.

Ergo there is ultimately one thing which can become all the variety of things, and that oneness must manifest the connectivity where one thing forms into another and so forth.

Exactly!

The 'thing' is informed by and informs all things. So you get photonic information which tells 'it' to manifest the quale 'red', and it does that on the TV screen and also in ones brain, and you see the red qualia.

This part, I disagree with. I don't think the quale red is added to the TV in addition to the brain. I think the quale red is represented by, not added to, specific brain activity (specifically in areas V1 and V4 of the visual cortex, if I'm not mistaken). Yes, brain activity is a representation of qualia--not a basis, a representation. Qualia (and what they project as) are what's really going on, and the brain is merely a sensory representation of that (and it too projects as a real brain). As for the TV, it too is a sensory representation of qualia, but not the qualia you see, not the red--the red is already a part of the representation, the TV you see, and is projected by your experience of sight before you as the color on the TV. What the TV itself represents is a whole other system of qualia (the kind TVs experience ), and its qualities are far beyond our ability to imagine. But, if my theory is correct, the qualia other physical systems around us (like the TV) experience ought to project as whole realities unto themselves and be meaningful to the system in question.

so what's on the TV screen and the rainbow?

Well, I touched on the TV above. Let me do the same for rainbows.

Rainbows, like the TV, are physical phenomena. As such, they are sensory representations of different systems of qualia being experienced elsewhere in the universe. Why we end up seeing a rainbow (with red and all the other colors) can again be explained by starting with the physics: We see rainbows because sun light diffracts as it passes through prism-like rain drops. Diffraction is the splitting of white light into its colors, thus forming a rainbow pattern. Some of these diffracted beams of light make their way into our eye upon when we see the colors of the rainbow. This process--light diffracting through rain drops--is a physical phenomenon like anything else in the universe, and so it represents a system of qualia being experienced elsewhere in the universe. What it represents specifically is a process by which a set of qualia, which at first is unimaginable to us, transform and metamorphosize, until it not only becomes imaginable, but we experience it as sight. In other words, we experience our senses because other experiences being had by the universe change and transform their qualities (they "flow") until they just become the experience of our senses. The physical process by which light diffracts through rain drops is the symbol our minds have come up with to represent that process of qualitative mental change.

It seams that the cardinality is at best vague. ...but something makes things take shape and denotes limits e.g. of you/others, and there isn't just space.

The you/other dichotomy is a very human one--it's not intrinsic to everything in nature--it has centrally to do with the fact that we are epistemic creatures. The ability to know about our experiences creates the illusion of a "me".