Post by The Lost One on Jun 2, 2017 11:02:04 GMT
Ok, well in your conversation with Saoradh you say "It's an objective fact, not dependent on perception, that from particular reference points, reflections of light waves from a transparent glass/liquid/straw system are such that the straw looks bent within the liquid compared to outside of the liquid." - How can it make sense to speak of something looking a certain way without there being a looker?
The issue is what counts as an explanation or not, and why that counts as an explanation or not
What do you reckon counts as an explanation?
Not that something has to be "tested for scientifically" for us to know it, but there's plenty of evidence that qualia are brain states. The evidence arrives via medical situations where persons' brains have been injured or otherwise compromised and we receive reports from them about their subjective experience.
That's the whole P-Zombie issue though, right? Someone can tell me they have the phenomenal experience of smelling burning toast when I fiddle with their brain but I can't know what they mean by this phenomenal experience is anything like what I mean by it. I can give them the benefit of the doubt and say because they are physiologically similar to myself they likely have the same experience. But then what if a sophisticated robot also says he has the phenomenal experience of smelling toast? If I take him at his word then I am admitting qualia are not brain states as his "brain" is materially and constructually different from mine. If I refuse to accept he is really experiencing qualia then I am question-begging because I am only accepting the testimony of those I already think truly experience qualia.
"Hmm but then if my brain came to the conclusion that 1+1=3, would I be right? " It's not right or wrong. It's a way of thinking about relations on a very abstract level.
Interesting - would you be a formalist as regards mathematics then?