bearing in mind that what I mean by “subjectivity” is “objective inaccessibility”
Just how inaccessible must something be, objectively, to count? Must it be logically impossible to access the state objectively, for example? Depending on how you cash this out, you may be in danger of using the word “subjectivity” idiosyncratically.
I have already listed another condition besides introspectability:
internal states which are intimately involved in, but not informationally exhausted by, cognition of the external world.
We could easily add conditions or clarifications. For example, let “external world” or “objective access” be specified as what other humans can detect with unaided senses.
I smell a false dichotomy.
Just how inaccessible must something be, objectively, to count? Must it be logically impossible to access the state objectively, for example? Depending on how you cash this out, you may be in danger of using the word “subjectivity” idiosyncratically.
No. But introspectability if far too weak a standard. I can introspect thoughts that are possible to communicate objectively.
I have already listed another condition besides introspectability:
We could easily add conditions or clarifications. For example, let “external world” or “objective access” be specified as what other humans can detect with unaided senses.