/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10487425
If you were going to read this thread in good faith then you should probably start by reading the very first responses to the thread, of which contains the support for premise 1 that you keep pretending does not exist... I didn't cite that post to talk about the structure of my argument but for the support for premise 1.
>so thanks for helping me clarify the direction you're coming from.
could you come off as anymore of a douche?
>"what it is like to be the subject" is the problem, it doesn't mean anything.
As noted in the scholarly source I provided earlier, from the standpoint of introspection "what it is like to be the subject" a.k.a. qualia is undeniable. We can both look at the same picture while you find it funny and I don't. There is what it is like for you to experience the picture, vs. what it s like for me to experience the picture. You see it and there is a certain qualitative feel you have, an experience of humor that is subjective to you that makes you laugh, while I see it I don't have that experience and so I don't laugh. If you want more info see: https://www.iep.utm.edu/qualia/
> "The same thing" is also too imprecise
...how...? If I tell you that my hand and the 5 fingered thing attached to my arm is the same thing you're going to sit here and tell me with a straight face that you this is too imprecise for you to understand what I'm saying...?