The same logic may not apply to experience: if you want to explain subjective experience, you need to explain any possible subjective experience, any experience that could be constructed, observed or not.
It is both absurd, and intolerably infuriating, just how many people on this forum think it’s acceptable to claim they have figured out how qualia/consciousness works, and also not explain how one would go about making my laptop experience an emotion like ‘nostalgia’, or present their framework for enumerating the set of all possible qualitative experiences.
(Including the ones not experienced by humans naturally, and/or only accessible via narcotics, and/or involve senses humans do not have or have just happened not to be produced in the animal kingdom)
The same logic may not apply to experience: if you want to explain subjective experience, you need to explain any possible subjective experience, any experience that could be constructed, observed or not.
Here’s lc’s opinion: