/lit/ - Literature

>>16302342
>>16302358
that such an obvious instance of knowledge long had by (at least, as an example) buddhists is surprising to the point of uncomprehension recapitulates my point. what
"you" can imagine or what "you'd think" is irrelevant.

>Think of one aspect of subjective experience, its ineffablility. The fact that you can't describe color to a blind person might be due to different neural encoding of the experience of color in the visual cortex and in the language areas (while we can readily share language "experience"). This would neatly explain one aspect of subjective experience in computational terms.

Show how the fact could be "due to" "different neural encoding of the experience of color in the visual cortex and in the language areas" rather than this describing the fact in neural terms.

No argument or evidence has been given that I know of that "observable events" to use the other poster's words can swallow up observation without remainder.

>>16187112
>hmm reality must be wrong, I read it on a blog

"Plato, although he originates the history of philosophy, also stands outside it. Aristotle is the first professor (despite the fact that Plato is the first university president). The absence of a conceptual theory in the Platonic dialogues is relatively clear from the fact that these dialogues soon produced the opposed schools of dogmatism *and* skepticism. There is an indeterminateness in the Platonic daydreams which the conceptualizing intelligence finds repugnant. As Kant himself remarks, Plato is the father of Schwärmerei; the philosophy of Aristotle 'is on the contrary *work*.'"