= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Peterdjones comments on The raw-experience dogma: Dissolving the “qualia” problem - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (340)
I'm not sure how this is relevant. I was responding to the objection that qualia have no vocabulary of their own, but ony parasitize vocabulary relating to external properties.
Sure, but that's introspection, not subjectivity.
I don't think so. bearing in mind that what I mean by "subjectivity" is "objective inaccessibility", not "introspectability". Permalink
I smell a false dichotomy.
Just how inaccessible must something be, objectively, to count? Must it be logically impossible to access the state objectively, for example? Depending on how you cash this out, you may be in danger of using the word "subjectivity" idiosyncratically.
No. But introspectability if far too weak a standard. I can introspect thoughts that are possible to communicate objectively.
I have already listed another condition besides introspectability:
We could easily add conditions or clarifications. For example, let "external world" or "objective access" be specified as what other humans can detect with unaided senses.