Moore's argument was that the skeptic could not provide more reason to doubt than he had to not. That is evidendtly not the case for qualia as both knowledge of physiology and confusion over intuitions gives ample reason to doubt. — Isaac
Moore's waving his hand about is no different than us pointing out colors and pains. They're both just as much a part of experience. — Marchesk
Inference doesn't make colors or pains go away anymore than it does hands. Except for zombies. — Marchesk
Yes, but the question now is, why is it inaccessible to an observer? And what does it mean to be inaccessible to an observer? Isn't it indirectly accessed via observation of behavior and neural activity? In other words, is the subjective accessible objectively?Under what domain? Philosophically, the subjective is private, private taken to mean inaccessible to an observer. — Mww
Moore's argument was that the skeptic could not provide more reason to doubt than he had to not. That is evidendtly not the case for qualia as both knowledge of physiology and confusion over intuitions gives ample reason to doubt. — Isaac
It's clear that the arguments in the article are successful in removing from reasonable discourse qualia that are both ineffable and private. The reasonable folk who defend qualia have followed the only course open, which was to shift the definition of one or more of the concepts involved. — Banno
why is it inaccessible to an observer? — Harry Hindu
Isn't it (subjectivity) indirectly accessed via observation of behavior and neural activity? — Harry Hindu
In other words, is the subjective accessible objectively? — Harry Hindu
there were on this thread many attempts to deny a phenomenological ‘layer’, a ‘representation’ of the world constructed in (or for) our minds based on sense data
— Olivier5
The second is not just a simile for the first. There's a world of difference between merely asserting a 'phenomenological layer' and asserting that it is 'constructed in (or for)our minds based in sense data'. — Isaac
Just want a point out that our ancestors evolved the ability to see color prior to language and public models. You can't quine color away without consulting evolution first. — Marchesk
This discussion is not only going on in the space between your ears — Banno
I just don't see the point in continuing a discussion in which the primary counter-argument is "...but it's obvious". — Isaac
I'm hoping that my present chat with @Mww might proceed in a new direction....in the end it seems to me that intuition pumps will not work on folk with the wrong intuition. — Banno
But the ground of it, the beginnings, the source, the construction of it, are, and are only (in the space between your ears) — Mww
I don't think this is true. — Kenosha Kid
There is stuff that is not between your ears. — Banno
It is pointless to continue a discussion in which it cannot be agreed that some stuff is only between the ears. — Mww
Again.....there most obviously is stuff not between the ears. — Mww
I just don't see the point in continuing a discussion in which the primary counter-argument is "...but it's obvious". — Isaac
It is pointless to continue a discussion in which it cannot be agreed that some stuff is only between the ears. — Mww
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.