Comment by arolihas
3 years ago
Are you asserting you don't have any subjective experience? Or that you only feel like you have a subjective experience and it doesn't actually exist?
3 years ago
Are you asserting you don't have any subjective experience? Or that you only feel like you have a subjective experience and it doesn't actually exist?
I am arguing that subjective experience is not what we perceive it to be. The qualities that we perceive of it are deceptive, and not necessarily reflective of anything real.
>The qualities that we perceive of it are deceptive, and not necessarily reflective of anything real.
This claim only makes sense given a particular definition of "real", but if (the qualities of) our subjective experiences are outside of that definition, why should we take (the qualities of) subjective experience to not be real, rather than the definition to be impoverished? What is real should encompass every way in which things are or can be. The qualities of subjective experience included.
The problem isn't with taking subjectivity to be real, but with taking everything that is real to be object based. There are no qualia "things" in the world. But we should not see this as implying there are no qualia.
Would you take a "day job" to be ontologically real? It is a way in which the aggregate of particles that make up your body regularly behave on a semi periodic schedule. That would seem to fit your definition of "encompassing every way in which things are or can be".
If it is real, isn't there still a need to distinguish ontological primitives from aggregate properties like the above? Why shouldn't this be what we mean by "real"?
7 replies →