Michael

You accused of something I didn't do. I'm not sure what kind of answer you expect from me.

I'm not assuming anything. My argument is only that if there is some non-physical aspect to consciousness then there cannot be any physical evidence t...

I'm not suggesting anything about him or his theory.

I'm not arguing that something else involved. I'm only arguing that if something else is involved then we can't have scientific evidence of it (or aga...

I'm not saying that brain activity isn't responsible for it. I'm only saying that if there is some non-physical aspect to consciousness then there can...

Because there might be more to consciousness than just that brain activity. I don't understand your question. That the brain is involved isn't that on...

And so that specific aspect of it isn't identical with brain activity, which is accessible in real time.

The brain is part of the body, so it's involved.

There is no huge leap. If A is inaccessible and B is accessible then A isn't B. It's very straightforward logic. If subjective experience is inaccessi...

My claim is exactly what I've said: if the subjective aspect of consciousness is inaccessible to science then ipso facto the subjective aspect of cons...

Bodily behaviour?

That stimulating certain nerves in certain ways causes the subject to flinch and say "that hurts".

What does that have to do with consciousness? You can have evidence that stimulating certain nerves in certain ways causes the subject to flinch and s...

How so? If the subjective aspect of consciousness is inaccessible to science and brain activity is accessible to science then ipso facto the subjectiv...

I'm not saying it's important or a problem. I'm just saying that if the subjective aspect of consciousness is inaccessible to science then nothing wou...

For the inaccessible aspect of consciousness.

Not exactly. I'm only saying that if it is inaccessible to science then there cannot be any scientific evidence of it.

Apparently he won't be getting a mugshot (and won't be handcuffed). Ex-Presidents get special treatment.

That's one theory. I wouldn't take it as a given. I can think things and yet not tell you or anyone else what I am thinking. There's more to conscious...

You asked for evidence, not theories. So assume you have two theories to explain how and why it works. What evidence would prove which one is correct,...

I don't understand the issue. Pain isn't a property of external world objects. I feel pain. There's no problem here. Colours aren't a property of exte...

The potential problem here is that if there is such a thing as first person consciousness, and if first person consciousness is essentially private, t...

And that's all semantic direct realism is: semantics. The epistemological problem of perception that gave rise to the distinction between the direct a...

The question is mistaken. Ironically Searle explains it well: So it is not the case that "feeling" is one thing, that "pain" is another thing, and tha...

Then we're at an impasse. Nothing you say can convince me that I don't feel pain. Headaches are real.

Secession from reality.

They are no more representations of apples than pain is a representation of fire or cold a representation of a temperature of 0°C. They are just an ef...

It’s not an either-or. The New York prosecutors are prosecuting him for alleged crimes committed in New York, the Georgia prosecutors are investigatin...

Yes, and the science shows that objects don’t have colour properties, a la colour primitivism. It is just the case that objects reflect light of a cer...

I’m not saying that either. I’m saying that the reality of colour perception is like this: /uploads/resized/files/yl/popfsfk98gtv8uu7.jpg Or maybe eve...

Yes, same with colour.

But it does make sense to say "what you mean by 'red' might not be what I mean by 'red'". Referring back to this picture, if the man were able to see ...

So any law that prohibits something that isn't, in itself, an evil, is an unjust law that shouldn't be a law and so shouldn't be punished? So are you ...

You asked me "Why is it .. that .. the overwhelming majority of people will see that it's blue and black." What you mean by this is "why is it that th...

Isn’t that all laws?

Yes, and different private experiences are the best explanation for the different responses. I know that the reason I describe the colours of the dres...

I think you need to read this. Indirect realism is a response to naive realism (what the author of the above paper calls "phenomenological direct real...

The fact that two people, fluent in English, describe the colours of the dress differently is evidence that the colours the dress appears to have to o...

Interestingly, I've just discovered that Bertrand Russell made much the same argument in An Inquiry into Meaning and Truth.

We do something similar to the experiment I referenced before in my discussion with Issac, show individual A an object that he previously described as...

or he’s guilty

It really is a cult.

Here's where I read it:

My experiences aren't self-evidence of gravity, but they are self-evidence of my experiences. That's common sense.

Yes, it's entirely possible that only adult humans have private experiences. Or it's entirely possible that only I have private experiences, and that ...

I agree. If some future scientist were able to modify my eye and give me tetrachromacy, I would see more colours than I see now, even though I wouldn'...

Evolution of colour vision in mammals Experience is evidence of itself. My different experiences are self-evident.

I agree with this, but it has nothing to do with what I'm saying. I don't care what words one uses to refer to the colours one sees. It doesn't matter...

@"Isaac" I refer you to this. Are you really trying to argue that without a language then we would just see a single non-coloured circle (or maybe not...

On the grounds that babies and non-human animals and illiterate deaf mutes raised by wolves in the jungle can see colours. First-person empirical evid...