If you're going to get OCD, I'm bailing.

Feel free.

Because you're going to be OCD now?

I'm explaining why, but by getting you to think so that you can realize the answer for yourself.

So why would you think either one of those possibilities rather than thinking that it's a complete coincidence?

That’s not the point here. You said the evidence shows the two are identical. I’ve given a reason why that isn’t the case. You’ve just supplied another.

That’s not the point here. — AJJ

My point at the moment is that you apparently do not realize how knowledge works in relation to empirical evidence, and you're appealing to the idea of proof without wanting to admit that.

So I want to help you figure out for yourself how it works.

So you think the idea that it's a complete coincidence is just as good.

That's fine. So, then the question is: do you think we can have evidence that any x and y are identical? For example, can we have evidence that the morning star is the evening star?

We’re talking about brain phenomena and experience. Your point is that the evidence shows they’re identical. I have suggested it could equally show that we experience our brain phenomena. You then suggested it may show a complete coincidence. You are willing to accept the former without further consideration, but not the latter two. Why?

We’re talking about brain phenomena and experience. — AJJ

Yes. And I'm trying to help you figure out how empirical evidence works in relation to knowledge, because that's turned out to be necessary to the discussion. Do you understand that?

You’re dodging the question, is what you’re doing.

Not at all. This is answering the question. But for you to understand the issues here, you need to understand how empirical evidence works in relation to knowledge--something that apparently you do not understand at the moment. So we need to go over this.

No it isn’t. Answering the question would be answering the question. This is a subject change. Answer it directly, and if I don’t understand the answer I’ll let you know.

I already answered directly and you already let me know that you don't understand how evidence works in relation to knowledge, because you're appealing to the fact that evidence doesn't rule out other possibilities, which is what proof would do.

Hence why we're going over this more systematically now.

I can't force you to go over it more systematically, but if you want to understand, that's what we need to do now.

You said the evidence shows that brain phenomena and experiences are identical. I suggested it could also show that we experience our brain phenomena. If the latter is an equal possibility, why insist on the former interpretation? If it is not an equal possibility, why?

No empirical evidence rules out any possibilities, does it?

Then why do you favour that former interpretation over the latter?

Because "ruling out possibilities" is otherwise known as "proof," but that's not at all what empirical evidence is about. That a category error, a red herring, an ignorant misunderstanding of what empirical evidence is and how it works.

Per your views, you'd not be able to conclude anything via any empirical evidence, right? Because no empirical evidence can rule out other possibilities, and you're trying to argue that if that's the case, empirical evidence can't show any one particular thing.

You’re changing the subject. You said the evidence has a particular conclusion where there are other possibilities. You will not justify why your chosen conclusion is best.

You’re changing the subject. — AJJ

Nope. This is the subject (at the moment at least). What empirical evidence can show. You made that the subject.

You made the subject by claiming the evidence shows brain phenomena and experiences are identical. I suggested the evidence could equally show we experience our brain phenomena. You will not justify your chosen conclusion.

You made the subject by claiming the evidence shows brain phenomena and experiences are identical. I suggested the evidence could equally show we experience our brain phenomena. You will not justify your chosen conclusion. — AJJ

It only equally shows that we experience our brain phenomena if you think that all empirical evidence equally shows every possibility related to it (including that it's only a coincidence, etc).

That's appealing to proof, because only proof rules out the other possibilities.

But empirical claims are not provable. Period. That's a category error.

And given your argument, to be consistent, you'd have to say that no empirical evidence can support any particular conclusion, period.

If you believe that some empirical evidence can support some conclusions, you need to look at why you believe that, so that you can adjust your view of empirical evidence to something that makes sense and is consistent.

This is a major problem, because at the moment you're committed to saying that no empirical evidence can support any particular conclusion.

We’re not talking about all empirical evidence. The evidence in question can be interpreted in more than one way. Which is the best way could be discovered perhaps through more empirical evidence, or through some logical justification. You have chosen your preferred conclusion in this case, but will not justify it.

The evidence in question can be interpreted in more than one way. — AJJ

So give me an example of empirical evidence that you believe couldn't be interpreted in more than one way, where you believe the empirical evidence in question supports a particular conclusion (while ruling out other possibilities)

Subject change. The point is still your claim that the evidence in question supports a particular conclusion, that you have proven unable to justify.

Subject change — AJJ

It's not a subject change. Again, the issue here is understanding how empirical evidence works with knowledge claims. Your objection here could be given for any empirical claim whatsoever. That's a problem.

But you just said it couldn't be applied to any empirical claim whatsoever. So let's put that to the test. If you're right, we'll drop the idea that this is a problem. What empirical claim do you think couldn't be interpreted in more than one way, where you believe the empirical evidence in question supports a particular conclusion? I'm not even requiring that it's a claim about x being identical to y, or a claim about causality or anything like that. Just any empirical claim whatsoever. That should make a counterexample easy, right?

The point is that where there is more than one possible way of interpreting of some evidence, the chosen interpretation should be justified. You have not justified your chosen interpretation. I’m not giving a parallel example because you will simply use it to dodge the point.

The point is that where there is more than one possible way of interpreting of some evidence, the chosen interpretation should be justified. — AJJ

It was justified, but the justification wasn't accepted, because you're appealing to proof, not evidence.

What you're doing could be done with any empirical claim or any justification whatsoever, with the upshot that we can have no empirical evidence of anything.

If you want to claim that that's not the case, you need to demonstrate how it would not be the case.

I can use examples you've posted elsewhere if you like.

Here's one: "I’m saying a human being’s life starts at its conception."

What would be evidence of that as opposed to the possibility that a human being's life begins at birth instead, and how could you justify a particular conclusion so that it's not just as well a conclusion for any of the logical possibilities re when a human being's life begins?

What was the justification you gave for choosing that former interpretation over the latter?

What was the justification you gave for choosing that former interpretation over the latter? — AJJ

That a change in one is a change in the other and there's no evidence whatsoever of the two being different.

Also, the idea of nonphysical existents is incoherent.

No subject changes. The justification is all I want, then I’m out.