4 ms·
I understand the argument but I disagree and would phrase it the other way around. We don't have evidence of conscious experience because we don't have evidence
by ffwd 3y ago
I understand the argument but I disagree and would phrase it the other way around.
We don't have evidence of conscious experience because we don't have evidence for a division between conscious experience and "existence/physical stuff" in the first place. This division is created by our brains and the model we have of the world but in reality the only evidence we have is that something exists.
Therefore, what we call subjective experience is evidence for the existence of what we experience, but until we can empirically show that there is a difference between what we experience and what reality is, the only thing we can say is that it exists. Also, that's the problem with the hard problem of consciousness - it assumes a division between the two, and we have no evidence of such a division. And lastly if it's not clear i am not a panpsychist either because that assumes a division on some level again. We don't know what existence itself is and how it functions really, at least not the brains function within existence.
- naasking 3y ago> Therefore, what we call subjective experience is evidence for the existence of what we experience, but until we can empirically show that there is a difference between what we experience and what reality is, the only thing we can say is that it exists. The division is between our third-person descriptions of reality in science, and our first-person "experience". You can't logically derive a first-person perspective only from third-person facts. That's what's at the heart of the hard problem. The eliminativist simply says that the first-person facts are a cognitive illusion, and so we really only have third-person facts, and the panpsychist says all third-person facts have an accompanying first-person component most of which we can't access.