(June 15, 2014 at 11:01 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:(June 15, 2014 at 10:49 pm)Irrational Wrote: Go by what they describe orally or in writing. And if a select few of them can't speak and can't write, make inferences about them based on other human beings similar to them in many characteristics.
There's also fMRI scans to make use of as well.
That's not exactly what I would call examining qualia using your senses, and as far as I'm aware fMRI isn't useful at examining qualia. I'd certainly grant that you can infer something about someone's subjective state, but experience the qualia that they experience?
If, based on observations of what they tell me, I can infer that they have subjective experiences similar to my own, and other assessors continually agree upon observing themselves what they have to say, then that's an empirical approach to finding out if they are likely to have similar subjective experiences, or "qualia", to me. And especially in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.
Also, concerning brain scans, if the same brain regions light up as my own upon experiencing pain (for example), and we also compared the scans to those corresponding to individuals who report that they don't feel pain, we could come up with fairly decisive conclusion regarding this matter.
Quote:The savvy ones are going to make the same observation that I'm making: that our preference for relying only on empiricism is precisely that, a preference, and *is not itself demonstrable empirically* - and they're correct on that point: you cannot assert that empiricism is the only method for ascertaining truth when the truth if that claim is not demonstrable empirically.
And I would respond by saying that I do not assert empiricism to be true, but rather that it's the only reasonable way to gain new semantic knowledge, and then I would list examples to support my view and challenge these "savvy ones" to provide examples to back up their own view. If they can't, then how can their view be a reasonable view to make?
