Skip to main content
Philosophy

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

6
  • 1
    I don't necessarily disagree with what you wrote, but have a question: Would you say your last statement means the same as (or would perhaps even be better expressed as) "... that still won't describe what it feels like to feel bored"? It seems to me that that is true, but that doesn't preclude explanation. I.e. the word "explain" and "explanation" seems ambiguous here. Commented 13 hours ago
  • 1
    E.g. the partial ineffability of direct experience can be seen as an introspective "given" (because we're not able to label, describe or remember certain distinctions even though we can observe them when they are presented simultaneously), but that doesn't preclude a decription that while adequate (and complete) cannot be verified just by introspection. Commented 13 hours ago
  • If qualia are outside of science, don't they not need explanation - they can simply, be? Commented 12 hours ago
  • @CriglCragl: I don't think I accept the concept of "outside of science" except for things which have no real presence in any sense. Outside of current knowledge, sure. Outside the scope we generally apply science to, absolutely. Outside the range that we feel a need to understand that deeply, sure. Commented 8 hours ago
  • @keshlam: By Popper's criteria, things like the different interpretations of quantum mechanics, being unfalsifiable, are outside science. Subjective experiences like whether art is felt to be good, are obviously real experiences, but outside of science. Many experiences are not about establishing evidence & analysis, like for instance experiencing love, as a subjective experience. Commented 7 hours ago