I maintain that someone who was given a complete account of the objective facts about the wavelength of light we designate 'red' and how it relates to our senses, WOULD recognise the colour red, even if blind.
The argument for irreducibility appears to be based on a vague intuition that you can't describe what red looks like in words - which would prove only that words are an insufficient method of communicating information.
@noodles321321 Not just in words but in numbers also. Any objective terms by themselves are insufficient, an insufficiency that is due to irreducibility. That's the point. The same applies for the example of love. Of course, I am not saying that the subjective experience and objective accounts are of different things, nor proposing anything metaphysical. Only that there are two perspectives of the same thing, one of which is irreducible into the other, the importance of which is limited.
You're still missing the point. Even if such things cannot be explained by numbers or words, the fact remains that all this would prove is that our methods of describing the objective world are limited; not that the thing in question is irreducibly subjective.
Besides which, neither you or ontologistics HAVE shown that the experience or the colour red or love cannot be expressed through current objectively descriptive terms like words or numbers. You've just assumed it.
@noodles321321 If our methods of describing the objective world - objective terms - are limited, then that would constitute the irreducibility of subjective experience into objective terms. That is the point.
I have not claimed to have shown or proven irreducibility - but I think it a little disingenuous to claim that I have simply assumed it. There is a prima facie case sufficiently strong that I am not prepared to dismiss it - I am at this time un-decided but leaning somewhat in favour.
It would NOT demonstrate the irreducibility of subjective experience. It would demonstrate that with our current tools, we can't reduce subjective experience. The distinction is crucial. To prove that, you require an argument against reducing subjective experience IN PRINCIPLE.
This ''prima facie'' argument seems to me to be a misguided appeal to a vague intuition that even if correct, would not prove the point being asserted anyway.
@noodles321321 I never suggested that the prima facie case was a proof, but sufficient reason not to be too dismissive. There have, of course, been some strong attempts to show the case in principle, as well as strong attempts to show the opposite. I don't know how familiar you are with the litterature but this is no small debate. My own reading leaves me lacking the confidence that I see in yourself and Ontologistics to declare a possition with such certainty - only a leaning.
I should concede that I have a habit of pretending to be far more certain of a position than I really am when arguing with someone. That seems like the best way of getting people to lay out their best arguments to tackle. I'm aware of the large debate happening in the philosophical community over qualia (and I certainly haven't read even a significant amount of the pertinent literature).
Anyway, I think this exchange has pretty much run dry. Thanks for the great conversation. :)
Thanks for the reply. Your point at 2:00 is not a point with which I disagree. Indeed my point at the end is that objectivity and subjectivity are indeed two perspectives of the same thing (Schopenhauer's 'Will & Representation' - 'double-aspect theory'), but that this the subjective perspective cannot be reduced to the objective - where the objective is the material.
yes I agree with the normal person.
AEVautomatic 1 year ago
I maintain that someone who was given a complete account of the objective facts about the wavelength of light we designate 'red' and how it relates to our senses, WOULD recognise the colour red, even if blind.
The argument for irreducibility appears to be based on a vague intuition that you can't describe what red looks like in words - which would prove only that words are an insufficient method of communicating information.
noodles321321 1 year ago
@noodles321321 Not just in words but in numbers also. Any objective terms by themselves are insufficient, an insufficiency that is due to irreducibility. That's the point. The same applies for the example of love. Of course, I am not saying that the subjective experience and objective accounts are of different things, nor proposing anything metaphysical. Only that there are two perspectives of the same thing, one of which is irreducible into the other, the importance of which is limited.
ANIideas 1 year ago
@ANIideas,
You're still missing the point. Even if such things cannot be explained by numbers or words, the fact remains that all this would prove is that our methods of describing the objective world are limited; not that the thing in question is irreducibly subjective.
Besides which, neither you or ontologistics HAVE shown that the experience or the colour red or love cannot be expressed through current objectively descriptive terms like words or numbers. You've just assumed it.
noodles321321 1 year ago
@noodles321321 If our methods of describing the objective world - objective terms - are limited, then that would constitute the irreducibility of subjective experience into objective terms. That is the point.
I have not claimed to have shown or proven irreducibility - but I think it a little disingenuous to claim that I have simply assumed it. There is a prima facie case sufficiently strong that I am not prepared to dismiss it - I am at this time un-decided but leaning somewhat in favour.
ANIideas 1 year ago
@ANIideas,
It would NOT demonstrate the irreducibility of subjective experience. It would demonstrate that with our current tools, we can't reduce subjective experience. The distinction is crucial. To prove that, you require an argument against reducing subjective experience IN PRINCIPLE.
This ''prima facie'' argument seems to me to be a misguided appeal to a vague intuition that even if correct, would not prove the point being asserted anyway.
noodles321321 1 year ago
@noodles321321 I never suggested that the prima facie case was a proof, but sufficient reason not to be too dismissive. There have, of course, been some strong attempts to show the case in principle, as well as strong attempts to show the opposite. I don't know how familiar you are with the litterature but this is no small debate. My own reading leaves me lacking the confidence that I see in yourself and Ontologistics to declare a possition with such certainty - only a leaning.
ANIideas 1 year ago
@ANIideas,
I should concede that I have a habit of pretending to be far more certain of a position than I really am when arguing with someone. That seems like the best way of getting people to lay out their best arguments to tackle. I'm aware of the large debate happening in the philosophical community over qualia (and I certainly haven't read even a significant amount of the pertinent literature).
Anyway, I think this exchange has pretty much run dry. Thanks for the great conversation. :)
noodles321321 1 year ago
Thanks for the reply. Your point at 2:00 is not a point with which I disagree. Indeed my point at the end is that objectivity and subjectivity are indeed two perspectives of the same thing (Schopenhauer's 'Will & Representation' - 'double-aspect theory'), but that this the subjective perspective cannot be reduced to the objective - where the objective is the material.
Ontologistics 1 year ago