It may be more difficult to get evidence about another person’s experiences than about their hair color, but there is no fundamental epistemic difference.
You have the intuition that there is not, others have the intuition that there is. You keep stating opinions as facts.
But they are never literally true statements about what a person can know or how they can know it.
Where’s the science behind that? You can’t prove that an experience has ever been fully communicated. We don’t have qualiometers.
Why on earth do you presume that we need to know how in order to know that?
Because otherwise reductionism is just a dogma. We need to know how A B or C is reducible in order to have evidence for that reduction has ever worked.
Of course we almost never have quark-level or even atom-level reductions. So what? Why on earth would that mean that we need intuition to accept that something can be explained in terms of known physics?
We don’t have quark level reductions , so it is an intuition that the kind of incomplete , hand-wavy inductive explanations we have actually work.
We use induction just like we do on many other things in science—most stuff that people have tried to explain in terms of known physics has turned out to be explainable, therefor we infer that whatever phenomenon we are looking at is also explainable. There is no intuition involved in that reasoning, just classic textbook inductive reasoning.
Given that you already have reductive explanations of A,B ,C, you can infer that there is a probility of having reductive explanations of D and E in the future. Not a certainty, because induction doesnt work that way.
So you haven’t shown that intuition isn’t needed to accept the validity of a reductive explanation.
Also, it’s it true that there is an inductive argument to the effect that everything is explicable by exactly the same physics. As I have said, physics is revised from time to time and that happens when it encounters a phenomenon that cannot be explained, and that would not have happened following a rule that unexplained phenomena are always to be derided and dismissed.
How can intuition be more or less informed on something like experience?
The topic was reduction.
And if it were then case that 100% of scientists were qualiaphobes, you would be into something … but it isn’t. Many scientists agree that we don’t have a satisfactory reductive explanation of consciousness.
I agree that we don’t have a satisfactory explanation of consciousness. As explained above, that does not justify taking seriously the position that there isn’t one in terms of the already known laws of physics.
As explained above, it does, because physics is not static and unrevisable.
And yet some things still can’t be explained in terms of our currentunderstanding. You are not advancing the argument at all.
This is not a point on which we disagree. The fact that we don’t currently have an explanation for some things is not a reason for thinking there isn’t one.
The fact that we do have explanations in term of current physics for some things is not certain proof that we will have explanations for everything. Induction is probablistic.
You have yet to actually appeal to any such argument, or to even name a scientist who you think is “qualiaphilic”. Present one, and we can talk about why it is wrong. As I have said before, the burden is on you.
The burden isn’t on me, because I am not making an extraordinary claim.
Given that you already have reductive explanations of A,B ,C, you can infer that there is a probility of having reductive explanations of D and E in the future. Not a certainty, because induction doesnt work that way.
So you haven’t shown that intuition isn’t needed to accept the validity of a reductive explanation.
So because something is based on induction and therefor probabilistic, it is somehow based on intuition? That is not how induction and probability theory work. Anyone with a physics education should know that. And if it were how that worked, then all of science would rely on intuition, and that is just crazy. You have devolved into utter absurdity. I am done with you.
You have the intuition that there is not, others have the intuition that there is. You keep stating opinions as facts.
Where’s the science behind that? You can’t prove that an experience has ever been fully communicated. We don’t have qualiometers.
Because otherwise reductionism is just a dogma. We need to know how A B or C is reducible in order to have evidence for that reduction has ever worked.
We don’t have quark level reductions , so it is an intuition that the kind of incomplete , hand-wavy inductive explanations we have actually work.
Given that you already have reductive explanations of A,B ,C, you can infer that there is a probility of having reductive explanations of D and E in the future. Not a certainty, because induction doesnt work that way.
So you haven’t shown that intuition isn’t needed to accept the validity of a reductive explanation.
Also, it’s it true that there is an inductive argument to the effect that everything is explicable by exactly the same physics. As I have said, physics is revised from time to time and that happens when it encounters a phenomenon that cannot be explained, and that would not have happened following a rule that unexplained phenomena are always to be derided and dismissed.
The topic was reduction.
And if it were then case that 100% of scientists were qualiaphobes, you would be into something … but it isn’t. Many scientists agree that we don’t have a satisfactory reductive explanation of consciousness.
As explained above, it does, because physics is not static and unrevisable.
And yet some things still can’t be explained in terms of our currentunderstanding. You are not advancing the argument at all.
The fact that we do have explanations in term of current physics for some things is not certain proof that we will have explanations for everything. Induction is probablistic.
The burden isn’t on me, because I am not making an extraordinary claim.
But anyway, here’s Witten and Schrodinger.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/world-s-smartest-physicist-thinks-science-can-t-crack-consciousness/
https://www.hendrik-wintjen.info/consciousness/erwin-schroedinger-one-mind/#:~:text=Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger is,in the universe is one.&text=Schrödinger also stated that “consciousness,in terms of anything else”.
So because something is based on induction and therefor probabilistic, it is somehow based on intuition? That is not how induction and probability theory work. Anyone with a physics education should know that. And if it were how that worked, then all of science would rely on intuition, and that is just crazy. You have devolved into utter absurdity. I am done with you.
That’s not what I said.
You substituted “inductive” for “reductive”.