3 ms·

Thanks for assuming I wouldn't know the basics of the philosophical questions I was asking, but I do. Also the phrase 'there is no who only thoughts without sub

Thanks for assuming I wouldn't know the basics of the philosophical questions I was asking, but I do. Also the phrase 'there is no who only thoughts without subject' does nothing to explain my subjective experience. It's not simple or obvious and I have been wondering and reading on it for decades. A couple of throw away lines won't enlighten me.

naasking 4y ago
I'm not assuming anything, I'm merely stating my position. The link I cited is a useful model for thinking about this, although you'll probably find the explanations around qualia unsatisfactory at first, but they check out IMO.
- namaria 4y ago
  The article is interesting but quite pedestrian. Subjective experiences are not objective and therefore no basis for science. Sure. That's pretty obvious. But does nothing to help me understand my own subjective experience.
  - naasking 4y ago
    > Subjective experiences are not objective and therefore no basis for science. I'm not sure why that was your only takeaway. It explains qualia as a model of perception whose source has been abstracted away, and this loss of information is why they seem ineffable and mysterious. That directly explains the hard problem of consciousness.
    - namaria 4y ago
      >That directly explains the hard problem of consciousness. You seem to be conflating explaining why this problem is hard with explaining the solution to the problem. It is not a solved problem. Efforts to circumscribe discussion and base it on sound logic are laudable. But by no means does this one article solve this open problem.
      - naasking 4y ago
        > You seem to be conflating explaining why this problem is hard with explaining the solution to the problem. No, the paper actually explains away the ineffability, which is the hard problem.