Sorry for the late reply.
What you are looking at is the video - a supposed consequence of 9/11. Similarly, when you look at behavior, you see the supposed consequence of qualia. As far as you know, the video can exist without the events as shown actually happening and behavior can exist without qualia actually occurring. Which means you should be equally agnostic in both cases. The extent to which you are only assuming that other have qualia is the same extent to which you are assuming that the towers were brought down.
The reality of physical universe has never been in question here - we're both assuming that from the start. Here's why your agnosticism in both cases should be equal:
You know your own qualia from your own experience and you probably know of buildings falling from your own experience as well. You know your behavior to be a consequence of your subjective experience and you know the video to be a consequence of recording a falling building. You know of these consequences in cases of which you have no direct experience - the 9/11 and other peoples' qualia. However, you believe that it is possible for these consequences to occur without that the particular cause. Which means, you should be equally agnosctic about them.
Since neither of us is arguing for emergentism, is there a point to this?
What do you mean by "no content"?
No idea.
But I have seen the juice behind the color purple and the dog before the wagging tail - so those "what ifs" are pointless. And given that one is all the sample size I have, that's what I have to base my reasonable conclusions on.
(November 8, 2013 at 7:03 am)bennyboy Wrote: No it wouldn't. The way I gain knowledge is to look at things. If I look at video of 9/11, I gain knowledge about it. I cannot look at the qualia in others. I can ONLY assume it.
What you are looking at is the video - a supposed consequence of 9/11. Similarly, when you look at behavior, you see the supposed consequence of qualia. As far as you know, the video can exist without the events as shown actually happening and behavior can exist without qualia actually occurring. Which means you should be equally agnostic in both cases. The extent to which you are only assuming that other have qualia is the same extent to which you are assuming that the towers were brought down.
(November 8, 2013 at 7:03 am)bennyboy Wrote: However, not all kinds of agnosticism are predicated on the same assumptions. When I accept your assertion that I'm agnostic about 9/11, it's because you can challenge whether the physical universe is real, or whether ALL news and video I've seen about it is fabricated.
This is not the case with qualia. I'm agnostic about the qualia of others because I know what my own qualia are like, and I am unable to find out if others have anything like them.
The reality of physical universe has never been in question here - we're both assuming that from the start. Here's why your agnosticism in both cases should be equal:
You know your own qualia from your own experience and you probably know of buildings falling from your own experience as well. You know your behavior to be a consequence of your subjective experience and you know the video to be a consequence of recording a falling building. You know of these consequences in cases of which you have no direct experience - the 9/11 and other peoples' qualia. However, you believe that it is possible for these consequences to occur without that the particular cause. Which means, you should be equally agnosctic about them.
(November 8, 2013 at 7:03 am)bennyboy Wrote: The BOP evidence claim fails to obvious speculation. I'm not asserting anything with this idea, except this: EVEN IF qualia is a property that is emergent on the physical, we cannot know on what material level it emerges without a question-begging definition.
Since neither of us is arguing for emergentism, is there a point to this?
(November 8, 2013 at 7:03 am)bennyboy Wrote: If there's no content, then what's the experience? Sounds like Buddhist nirvana or something.
Qualia is an understanding of what experiences are LIKE. So all the subjective feelings, sensations, ideas, etc. associated with, say, watching a pretty girl would be qualia.
What does pineapple taste like? You can identify the chemical composition of pineapple without really "getting" what it is like to actually eat a piece of it. That's what qualia is.
Now, if you want to argue that dream qualia can have the same qualities as qualia about real things, then we are going somewhere interesting, but I don't see the relationship to this thread.
What do you mean by "no content"?
(November 8, 2013 at 7:03 am)bennyboy Wrote: Oh, is that all? And here I thought we'd have to do something difficult. How would YOU go about simulating trillions of neurotransmitter packets as they are released and absorbed?
No idea.
(November 8, 2013 at 7:03 am)bennyboy Wrote: What if you could ONLY see the purple, but never the juice? Would you find it reasonable to infer that there was a tasty liquid behind it? What if you could ONLY see the wagging tail, but never the dog? Would you find it reasonable to infer a cuddly puppy?
The fact is that the only behavior/qualia relationship you have ever been able fully to observe is your own. Do you really consider a sample size of one sufficient to generalize to a confident assertion of "knowledge" about the nature of everything entity around you?
I don't think that's very scientific. I think it's philosophical.
But I have seen the juice behind the color purple and the dog before the wagging tail - so those "what ifs" are pointless. And given that one is all the sample size I have, that's what I have to base my reasonable conclusions on.
