(January 20, 2019 at 11:58 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: I was speaking to something else, consider a statement earlier in thread, that subjective and objective were wholly disparate and, therefore (at least in Bennys mind) unresolvable to each other. Linguistically, literally, that's true, they are irreconcilably disparate - but that hasn't stopped science from investigating things with both components..because, while the meanings of the words may be night and day, the fundamental process by which both are achieved has, thusfar..been the same across both cases.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying Benny objects to the idea of studying subjective states because they don't accurately reflect objective realities. But that is one very big motivation to study subjective states -- so we know their limitations and how to compensate for them. In the case I mentioned to him, the invisible gorilla experiments, a large number of people literally didn't see the man in the gorilla suit because they were paying attention to something else. Thus inattentional blindness became a proven weakness in human consciousness. That is an objective, measurable fact about a subjective state, regardless of the semantics.
When it comes to conscious states, an experience of pain is an experience of pain, whether it is caused by a real wound or a phantom limb. Similarly, the lack of experience of something which is really there is also a fact in itself.
