Out of the Dark

So replies are necessary to points, otherwise there is no point in making them in the first place. What I see at your link is an aggregator website for undemonstrable stories. The same old routine.

Therefore I said that a reply was not necessary.
 
Last edited:
In any case, this isn't really against you. I know it from my own self-questioning on the subject, for many years.

Ok - your warranted belief that demonstration can not be equal to subjective evidence is: that your subjective exploration proves it.

(I'm spinning now and I must fall down)
 
Ok - your warranted belief that demonstration can not be equal to subjective evidence is: that your subjective exploration proves it.

(I'm spinning now and I must fall down)

Yes, formally speaking, you are right. I don't "know" it just by my own subjective conclusion. When we are speaking about anything other than the simple fact of experience (not the content of experience), such conclusions orphaned from collective evidence are never really reliable.
 
What I see at your link is an aggregator website for undemonstrable stories. The same old routine.
Kai,

Your belief in this assertion must lie in your specific definition of demonstration. Happiness is a subjective experience, but facial gestures are indirect evidence. They are patterned data enough to be able to judge a happiness level from a photograph of faces. Testing for subjective feelings and states is reasonably well-developed science. Why are these not demonstrable in your take of how to observe natural phenomena? Their subjective states are both a narrative and fully subjective.
 
Kai,

Your belief in this assertion must lie in your specific definition of demonstration. Happiness is a subjective experience, but facial gestures are indirect evidence. They are patterned data enough to be able to judge a happiness level from a photograph of faces. Testing for subjective feelings and states is reasonably well-developed science. Why are these not demonstrable in your take of how to observe natural phenomena? Their subjective states are both a narrative and fully subjective.

This is a version of the evidence we have that "other people are conscious." Even though at the end of the day we cannot "prove" that other people are conscious, most of us take a natural softening of that approach in order to grant other people the benefit of the doubt. Still, it's simply a belief-choice on our part. A very deeply embedded one, and I'm not saying an unnatural one, but at the end of the day there's no way of actually knowing that someone is truly happy. The other problem with this example is that references the private experiential dimension and not a public phenomenon. However, to the extent that a billionaire has found "true happiness" in a new love, and gives away half his fortune, I would indeed consider that fairly good circumstantial evidence that he is happy.
 
Back
Top