(May 9, 2013 at 1:30 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: In this particular case, I do not believe correlation justifies belief in causation, since other factors are at play. For example, my saying, "The brilliant magenta blooms on the crab trees make me happy, " is much different than saying, "a high saturation of photons at n-angstroms correlates with electrical impulses that stimulate the visual cortex resulting in Chad reporting a state he calls happy." Something meaningful gets left out.
I see no difference between the two statements, except that one does a better job at communicating the significance you have personally applied to the experience. What is left out is the importance you have placed upon experiencing beauty and happiness.
(May 9, 2013 at 1:30 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: While I know of a few ways to deal with the difference between subjective and objective experiences. I do not find them compelling. One theory is nominalism; that these are just different ways of describing the same thing. This seems the most common opinion among AF members. To me that answer begs the question. By saying that subjective/objective distinctions refer to the same aspect of reality is to presume that one description reduces to the other without leaving any form of knowledge behind. But the objective description in no way coveys any of the qualitative aspects of the subjective experience. So I am of the opinion that nominalism fails.
Hmm...can't really comment on that. Have to do further reading when I get the chance.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell